No.5957[Last 50 Posts]
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.
File: 1596045450017.png (172.84 KB, 604x490, 302:245, pinkie idea.png) ImgOps Google
Harry Potter is still a pretty fun story to read.
And Casual Vacancy is also one of the better books I read in the last few years.
File: 1596045514463.jpg (34.3 KB, 500x584, 125:146, 7390647d87eaddede941ba2b9b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Can we at least keep the memes?
File: 1596046443494.png (339.53 KB, 819x1024, 819:1024, asease.png) ImgOps Google
Sure, okay, that's fine... But can we keep them?
I really don't think fame made her anti-trans. It's far more likely she always felt that way and only now has a platform to express those thoughts because of her fame.
While I find nothing wrong with one of the characters in Harry Potter being gay, it seems kind of lazy to retroactively just say they were without including it in the text itself in any capacity. It seems like trying to get "points" for inclusivity when you didn't actually help the issue of under-representation.
File: 1596046698950.png (789.49 KB, 1000x1027, 1000:1027, 609207__safe_twilight spar….png) ImgOps Google
Harry Potter is SO bad!
So so so bad. Definitely really bad.
File: 1596046824026.png (251.66 KB, 446x430, 223:215, huh 5.png) ImgOps Google
Why do you hate Harry Potter so?
While i can appreciate some of the long-term planning that went into the books, i think yea, overall it was pretty bad. The universe is set up in a way where you can just make shit up to get out of any situation and then be like "lol yea, that's been there the whole time". It also plays off escapism fantasy, which is always a cheap way to go imho. Like, oh yea, you could secretly be a wizard too, reader, and one day you'll be taken to Hogwarts! Gives me those kinda self-insert vibes, and of course, i can't help but hate anything on the timeline to isekai, so i have to kinda hate harry potter on principle for potentially contributing to that problem, as well. It certainly uses all the cheap tricks in the book. So yea, overall pretty shit. I find the retconning to make everyone gay pretty funny, myself.
It sucks? >>5969
What is "the timeline to isekai"?
File: 1596050097651.png (251.96 KB, 662x600, 331:300, tcha.png) ImgOps Google
Maybe you suck
File: 1596050601084.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, mtr_1588629993551.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I disagree with your assertion.
File: 1596053751859.jpg (53.38 KB, 439x475, 439:475, arise-chickun.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5957>the creator of Harry Potter has outed herself as a terrible person
lol wut?>we all finally agree that Harry Potter was never good?
No, I still like the series. And what does that have to do with Rowling as a private individual? Whether or not a work is good is entirely orthogonal to the author's alleged personal failings.
File: 1596053956113.jpg (108.63 KB, 662x513, 662:513, baneposting-141447141294.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5966>Tons of memes based on things that suck.
Like the Plane Scene. It was so bad it wrapped around to be good and gave birth to a meme that forever cemented it in meme history!
J.K. Rowling has been saying bunch of homophobic and trans-phobic things publicly.
She still created the series and her worldview is part of the narrative whether that was the intention or not.
>>5965>I really don't think fame made her anti-trans. It's far more likely she always felt that way and only now has a platform to express those thoughts because of her fame.
Naw I meant her inflexibility and unwillingness to see things from others perspectives on this issue. She's acting like a stereotypical Boomer about this issue in particular, kind of has her head stuck in the 70s. Fame made her stubborn about it. She's extra privileged now and is certainly acting like it. >>5965>While I find nothing wrong with one of the characters in Harry Potter being gay, it seems kind of lazy to retroactively just say they were without including it in the text itself in any capacity. It seems like trying to get "points" for inclusivity when you didn't actually help the issue of under-representation.
No disagreement there.
She had a story about opposing bigotry and facism, but then ironically fails to see her hypocrisy in her reasoning why transgender people are some special exception to her opposition to bigotry in general. She comes off as completely lacking in self awareness of it.
Are you just hopping on a hate/cancel bandwagon?
Everyone is trying to hate on the creator of Danny Phantom now too.>letgoofyourhate.png
File: 1596056732564.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, mtr_1588629993551.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
The main one presented in your original post.
However if this is an invitation to comment on your other statements throughout the last few years I'd say I'd disagree with quite a few things you've said then as well.
File: 1596056931538.jpg (113.63 KB, 960x720, 4:3, 1504318504601.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
i've never agreed with you more damn
That's not a new thing.
And that tends to happen when you scam people, advocate for "praying the autism away" and tell people working in your field that they're the reason their friends commit suicide.
File: 1596057274868.png (34.09 KB, 632x542, 316:271, shy.png) ImgOps Google
Can you show/tell me an example of this "promoting" you speak of?
I've only heard ramblings, so I don't really know.>>5990
Well, I'm not too informed honestly.
I would say its not good to just take rumors online.
But if its been happening awhile then thats different.
Mhm. Yep, people can only ever have one sibling. >>5991
Bigotry isn't supposed to be rational ... that's kind of the point. Facism is about the privileged and the powerful using the fear of difference and outsiders to maintain their power and privilege.
I have two. We all dislike Harry Potter.>>5992
I'll see what I can find. I'm not too involved with this since i'm not trans and I'm not a fan of Harry Potter. But bigotry is wrong no matter who is the target.
File: 1596057621027.jpg (82.87 KB, 604x724, 151:181, jk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
honestly this is all you should need
It's like when they had the one scene of two lesbians in one of the Star Wars movies, but the scene was made incredibly brief so they could edit it out in certain countries. You could literally blink and miss it.
If some movie said "We had a black character in this movie, but his scenes were kept just short enough so that we could edit them out in Alabama" I wouldn't feel represented or accepted. Or that they actually cared about the issues of racism. And I sure as hell wouldn't commend them for such a half-assed act. So I get why it feels disingenuous and pisses people off when real studios replace "black" with "gay" and "Alabama" with "Saudi Arabia" or "China" or whatever. It's fake as shit for you to not only do the bare minimum while still trying to maximize profits and placate bigots, but to then try and get some kind of credit for doing it. You guys are cowards.
He routinely shows some pretty bad behavior. These aren't rumors, it has been going on for a while.
Aside from not-great but somewhat-understandable things like snapping at viewers if they critique his work in any way (basically saying "You haven't made a cartoon so you have literally no say in what anything good is ever and your input is worthless") , there was a whole business of him claiming that things like suicide and depression "didn't exist" when he was young and could just be prayed away now.
And this is not including him starting a crowdfunding for a supposed family-friendly streaming service of his own creation, never saying until much later down the line that it was supposed to push and convert to strictly Christian values so that things could go back to when "People just got through it" when there were problems and "suicide was unheard of"... And suspiciously, the whoel Kickstarter was a FAR too low amount to create such a service in the first place...
Dude did create a lot of cool stuff, but in recent years he has just kept digging himself deeper with his overall behavior. He tried to start an E-celeb career and just keeps getting Boomier than the Boomerest Boomer in some of the shit he spews.
File: 1596058012084.jpg (59.63 KB, 780x405, 52:27, earthworm-jim-interplay-sa….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Turns out the creator if Earthworm Jim is a diphshit too... That was my favorite game!
>>5992>Can you show/tell me an example of this "promoting" you speak of?>I've only heard ramblings, so I don't really know.
Well, for one, there was the contents of that whole 3600 word essay she posted in response to the cast of the movies denouncing her prior transphobic tweets. >>5994
So what's your problem with people liking things you don't anyway? >>5996
We call that "rainbow capitalism"
So enjoy the game. Shitty world views isn't a disease you get by touching the cartridge that is about a funny worm man with a zippy zap cartoon gun.
The "shitcan literally everything if anyone involved in its creation said anything bad" thing doesn't get you anywhere. You're gonna end up with a very, very tiny pool of content to enjoy. You're not going to change anything, or make a dent in wahtever they have accomplished.
So just enjoy shit regardless, and be aware and vocal about disagreements with the creator. It's not that hard to not either be "I worship the ground this person walks on" or "literally everythign ever they as much as breathed on is now covered in satan jizz."
What you get out of it is what counts. If anything, enjoy it out of spite.
File: 1596058441408.png (15.74 KB, 212x257, 212:257, 130152211841.png) ImgOps Google
That seems to be her "mocking"
that ridiculous article though.
Describing women in such a way is blasphemous, and she's simply asking for equality.>>5997
Thank you for the explanation.
I've only been paying attention recently.>>1047777>essay
That seems like a little too
much effort on her part to naysay.
Also lucky sevens.
I don't follow what you're responding to here. I wasn't talking about "Liking things you don't".
I was talking about how the notion that because a creator of a piece of media you like said one bad thing, now everything they created is automatically tainted and must be boycotted isn't particularly viable and accomplishes nothing but robbing yourself of content you otherwise enjoy.
I may have misread your post but this did confuse me a bit.>>6002
S'just the ones I am aware of. He also generally comes across as lazy whenever one of his commissions make the rounds. Like a recent drawing of Ranma's girl form he charged 200 dollars for that is basically a trace of the first picture of her you'll find if you look her up on Google.
No, "people who menstruate" is meant to encompass all people who were born with female reproductive organs, including ones who identify as male now. Likewise, you can't say "women" to indicate "people who menstruate" because a lot of people who consider themselves women don't.
By insisting that "people who menstruate" and "women" are the same things, she's being transphobic.
Sorry, I meant to type something like "it's almost as if someone is grasping at straws, trying to act like their "stop liking thing I don't like" somehow isn't
File: 1596059164830.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, mtr_1588629993551.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I caught that too, figured a word went in the wrong other.
Like how everyone's twitter turns rainbow in June and then they never talk about it any other time of year?
Also, I'm not sure I have a "problem" with people liking things I don't like. I certainly don't understand it, because if I did, then I would like it too. >>6000
Yeah, death of the author and all that. But the problem is, every work of art has some of the author and their worldview in it? How much of Doug Tennappel's homophobia made it into Earthworm Jim? Probably almost zero. But how much of Orson Scott Card's worldview got into "Ender's Game"? A considerable amount more. If you keep in mind that fact, that all works of art have some of the author in them, is it really possible to completely separate art for creator?
Because it is your responsibility as a viewer to not just pick and choose the content you see, but be critical of / defiant of values in it you do not wish upon yourself. True, that's not always easy, especially for certain age groups.
Sides, you literally just said it yourself: It's entirely possible for these creators to have zero of their bad views in a piece of their work. So your own claim of "ALL works of art have some of the author in them" is now void by your own admission, espeically since on your example, "some" means "thinks a muscly worm in a cartoon spacesuit getting hit in the face with a cow is funny""
If anything, the fact that HP fans are so riled up now proves that Rowling inspired a lot of GOOD in people regardless of whatever views she got more adamant about later. So boom - she literally had the opposite effect of what you're trying to claim is always the case now.
There's never an all-encompassing extreme. And it's always at the very least partly up to you what you take away from anything.
File: 1596059941118.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, mtr_1588629993551.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Yeah, but, I didn't like it as a kid so others shouldn't now.
Well now I see that she did that on purpose with select choice of words on her part.
Good example of how she thinks.
I was just trying to explain it away, but I guess now I shouldn't. At all.>>6012
I see that now. I was mistaken.>>6004
Ok so I just looked into what you told me
and holy shit.
Inferring it's someone's fault at their suicide?
To Tara Strong?
And everything else.
I've only seen the crappy commission and general loss of drive in later years until now.
>>6011>Also, I'm not sure I have a "problem" with people liking things I don't like. I certainly don't understand it, because if I did, then I would like it too.
So why have you been doing this sort of thing with so many media properties for years? It comes off as apparent you find something threatening about people liking things you don't. >How much of Doug Tennappel's homophobia made it into Earthworm Jim? Probably almost zero. But how much of Orson Scott Card's worldview got into "Ender's Game"? A considerable amount more.
So, if you're argument why everyone who likes Harry Potter now should just admit that the franchise is bad now is because The authors worldview is supposedly inseparable from the work itself, aren't you basically arguing against yourself here?
I mean it just seems so convenient
that there's no homophobia in one of your favorite video games but not in a Sci-Fi book you're probably only passingly familiar with. >>6012
Yeah, but the irony of implictly shooting herself in the foot by basically implying she will stop being a woman after menopause in especially delicious.
File: 1596060818074.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, mtr_1588629993551.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
It's unfortunate I know.
File: 1596061696639.png (220.34 KB, 399x467, 399:467, 76576587769879.png) ImgOps Google
I moved it. The topic was getting quite controversial. I mean there was discussion about "transphibia, homophobia", etc. That doesn't seem to fit the bill for /pony/ type topics. If I messed up, I will take the wrap for it.
File: 1596061812522.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, mtr_1588629993551.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Seems like a good idea to me.
File: 1596063486916.jpg (50.39 KB, 525x774, 175:258, harry-otter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5957>>5978>J.K. Rowling has been saying bunch of homophobic and trans-phobic things publicly.
Just because you disagree with someone on a contentious social or ethical issue doesn't mean that he/she is a 'terrible person'. You can strongly disagree with someone and think that he/she is severely mistaken on a certain issue without condemning him/her as 'terrible person'. The world would be a much meaner and more unpleasant place if people couldn't respect each other despite their differences of opinion on hot-button issues like gender, veganism, abortion, the Second Amendment, et cetera.>She still created the series and her worldview is part of the narrative whether that was the intention or not.
Please give citations to actual text in the series to support this claim. I never got this impression at all when I was reading the series.
I'm not saying she's a "terrible person" because I disagree with her. But promoting and spreading bigotry DOES make someone a terrible person. Even if I am not trans, bigotry is bad no matter who it's directed at.
Citation of... what exactly? That an author's worldview shapes their work? That's just a fact. Nothing is created in a vacuum.
>>6028>But promoting and spreading bigotry DOES make someone a terrible person.
I disagree. E.g., I think you are quite bigoted against AR-15s and that you promote and spread such bigotry, but I don't think that you're a terrible person. >>6028>Citation of... what exactly? That an author's worldview shapes their work?
Citation of Harry Potter
having an anti-transgender narrative.
AR-15s aren't people. They aren't even alive. Please tell me you're not being serious.
And specifically in Harry Potter? I haven't read all the books so I can't provide that. But do you think Dumbledore is gay? That's not in the books themselves, but she established it after the fact.
The politics of a creator does not determine whether or not the work is good.
Harry Potter is okay. I wouldn't say it's amazing, but, for the given genre, it's pretty solid. Probably better than Eregon was, and I rather like those books
File: 1596066255264.png (60.3 KB, 463x436, 463:436, definition-bigot.png) ImgOps Google
In fact, I'm going to go further and tentatively assert that accusing people
(as opposed to their actions
) of being morally terrible is generally misguided. Even when people must be punished for their actions, it should be kept in the mind that the punishment is for the action.>>6030>AR-15s aren't people. They aren't even alive.
OK, but that's not really relevant to my argument. You can still be bigoted and prejudiced against inanimate objects.>And specifically in Harry Potter? I haven't read all the books so I can't provide that.
Well I did read all the books, and I can tell you that I didn't pick up any hint of anti-transgender sentiment in any of the books.>That's not in the books themselves
OK, well then it's not canon.
>>6032>You can still be bigoted and prejudiced against inanimate objects.
. I'm not sure how much of this is you being serious and you being a troll-meister, but just for clarity's sake when I say "bigotry", I almost exclusively mean bigotry against people or groups of people and on very, very rare occassions, other living organisms besides people. >OK, well then it's not canon.
Actually Harry Potter fans WILL debate you on that. She directly said it was part of canon later and Dumbledore being gay was included in future Harry Potter things, like the Fantastic Beast movies. If you start saying thato nly things that are present in the text are canon, then almost no fictional characters have to use the bathroom since it's never referenced.
But we are getting away from the point. J.K. Rowling is clearly transphobic, and she wrote the story of Harry Potter. Her world view is part of that narrative, even if it's not explicitly stated
. Like, she chose to give wizards a segregationist society. That was informed by her personal worldview. Not that that (necessarily) has to do with her transphobia. But the point is, every decision she made about that world and it's characters came from her and her own personal outlook. That is an unavoidable fact. So to say the work is completely separate from her is false.
>>>/canterlot/6782>And so why is it "controversial" to say, in a pro-LGBT space, that someone being anti-LGBT is bad?
Saying "being anti-LGBT is bad" is quite different than saying "Person X
is bad because X
is anti-LGBT". Reducing a person's whole moral worth to a single one of their failings is controversial.
If you are needing an example of people, I would definitely say you're very bigoted towards anyone on the right.
Or, people who live in rural areas. You certainly said a lot of things that I think are not only inaccurate, but downright hurtful, in regards towards those who live in the countryside.
Not... really? Like if you say "Racism is bad" and then you say "Mr. White is a racist". It's pretty easy to extrapolate that Mr. White is a bad person.
Transphobia is bad. J.K. Rowling is a transphobe. J.K. Rowling is bad.
I put money on if you asked JK Rolling she'd say the same "I've got nothing against" line for trans people.
But that hardly means she didn't say some hurtful and bigoted things
Well, If I accused any rural people of being bigots who are not bigots
, then I apologize. I will be careful to use language that targets bigots instead of rural people. I'm fairly certain I've already talked about that publicly, though.
File: 1596067891077.png (164.46 KB, 1167x988, 1167:988, 1439931891701.png) ImgOps Google
>>6033> when I say "bigotry", I almost exclusively mean bigotry against people or groups of people and on very, very rare occassions, other living organisms besides people
OK, well back in 2015 and 2016 you were quite bigoted against those supported Trump over Hillary. And even as someone who favored Trump over Hillary, I didn't think you were a 'terrible person' even though you were bigoted against a class of persons that included me.>then almost no fictional characters have to use the bathroom since it's never referenced.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.>So to say the work is completely separate from her is false.
OK, perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I meant to say that the work needs to be evaluated on its own. If the author had an anti-transgender bias, you can't criticize the work based on that unless you can show that the work incorporates this bias. And tbh, I doubt that JK Rowling even had an anti-transgender bias at the time of the writing, simply because the entire concept of transgender wasn't really on most people's radar at that time.>>6037>Like if you say "Racism is bad" and then you say "Mr. White is a racist". It's pretty easy to extrapolate that Mr. White is a bad person.
I disagree. I don't believe that a person's whole moral worth can be reduced to a single one of their failings.
It's not the accusations to individuals, it's the generalized statements.
Like I said, though, it's hardly just rural folk you've done this to. Right wingers, or Trump voters (whom are not necessarily the same) get similar bigotry often enough.
Though honestly the supposition that PoC cannot be bigoted inherently I would argue is itself quite thoroughly bigoted, anyway. Depends on your standards for the term, I suppose. I would regard somebody who thinks, say, white people are superior, a bigot, even if that doesn't necessarily mean that he's saying everyone else is bad or has poor traits in some other capacity directly
Edit: Thinking about it, I've got to say I find the term "PoC" itself rather offensive in that capacity, as it's singular usage is explicitly to combine all other groups of any origin together with the exception of white people.
It's a term that it is quite explicitly "everyone but this one race".
The more I think about it the more it strikes me as exceptionally rotten.
>>6040>If the author had an anti-transgender bias, you can't criticize the work based on that unless you can show that the work incorporates this bias.
OK, that's fair. I can't really provide that at this time. I'm saying its possible
it does contain an anti-trans bias. I just don't like Harry Potter for other reasons, and if Harry Potter is bad for ANY reason, even if it doesn't have anti-transgender bias, then isn't it better we all accept that it's bad and take away Rowling's power to spread bigotry?> I doubt that JK Rowling even had an anti-transgender bias at the time of the writing
There's no reason to think that. People don't just suddenly become bigots overnight. > don't believe that a person's whole moral worth can be reduced to a single one of their failings.
Depends on the failing. Thinking Captain Kirk is better than Captain Picard? Obviously a failing, but it doesn't make you a "bad" person. But being a racist is a different matter. Likewise, being transphobic. >>6040>>6041
Supporting Trump means supporting (or at least being complacent with) the things he supports and promotes. I'm not interested in debating whether you personally think Trump is or isn't something. Those arguments are always circular and never go anywhere. But if I'm against Trump for his views, i'm automatically against those who support and are complacent with those same views.
This shouldn't surprise you. If there was a guy out there stomping puppies to death, and I was very much against the stomping of puppies, why would you be shocked I'd be against the people supporting the puppy-stomper? This feels like the two of you trying to start a political argument and I have no interest in that right now.
Well at least you're up front with being a bigot in that regard.
Would you think it is acceptable, giving your response here, for me to say that you're a bad person, and that consequently anything you create is terrible?>This shouldn't surprise you. If there was a guy out there stomping puppies to death, and I was very much against the stomping of puppies, why would you be shocked I'd be against the people supporting the puppy-stomper?
Because your supposition for why they support the person is that they step on puppies. This is not necessarily accurate. This is representative of your own bigotry and your own personal bias. This is not representative of reality.
File: 1596068844994.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google
>>6033>If you start saying thato nly things that are present in the text are canon, then almost no fictional characters have to use the bathroom since it's never referenced.
They don't, they just use magic to vanish their poop away.
I never said I was a bigot. The things I am against Trump and his supports for are things I'm morally against. Saying I'm a bigot for not liking them is like saying someone having a moral stance against killing is bigoted against hitmen.>>6044
I heard about that... Just... why add that?
Technically speaking, and I imagine this is what people are working off of, bigoted means "intolerant of opinions" according to the dictionary. So technically if you're intolerant of a politicians actions you are bigoted. Some people would go on to say that you should never be bigoted according to this definition and that all ideas and opinions should be allowed and explored.
I definitely do not personally ascribe to this, I believe that it's very okay to not tolerate everything. Perhaps even preferable that some things are not tolerated. It's just notable that we're all kind of working on different definitions of "bigot".
>>6048Trump is a racist
. Anyone who votes for him or supports him is a racist
, or at the very least, is complicit in racism. This is what you actually wanted to argue. But honestly, I have no desire to argue this. If you cannot see his racism by now, you will not be convinced by an online argument. You are already too deep in denial or ignorance to budge. If you wanna argue whether or not Trump is racist, start a new thread and I will happily ignore it because it will just ended up being a circle-jerk for Trump apologists/racists trying to justify their racism.. But I will not be accused of "bigotry" for not tolerating racism. That is farcical.
This will be the last post I entertain over whether or not being against racism is bigotry.
File: 1596069765590.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google
>>6049>This is what you actually wanted to argue.
Well no, I didn't want to argue that at all, that was someone else.
Pitting crimes on people that aren't necessarily ones they've done is definitely bigotted.
Somebody can say the reason they don't like black people is some crime rate statistic, but that doesn't mean it's justified. Individuals are not responsible for the crime committed by others.
In the case of Trump, there was plenty of reason people had to vote for him that was not bigoted. likewise, I would say there's plenty of reasons to support him now, over the alternative, without being bigoted.
The presumption of some moral failing based on your own assumption of what happened and why they did it is plain and simple bigotry.
Hmm, ok. Well still, it's what I want to say on the matter. Sorry for hitting you in the splashback. Let's get back to the real topic, though.
Why Harry Potter sucks.
Depends. Context is key. Remember that a vote in the case of an election is not a matter of "select him or nobody", you're often stuck between two bad choices.
I will vote for Trump this year. I don't really like him that much. He's got a lot of policy I don't like. I consider Biden much worse
of course they're in denial. They don't accept your personal worldview. I don't accept it. I don't think it's accurate. I don't think he is.
This would, to you, be denial. it would also mean that there is not a moral failing in regards to Trump supporters, but rather, as you should see it, a lack of understanding.
Being stupid is not immoral.
And of course, all of this presumes you're right.
File: 1596070114337.png (400.68 KB, 750x1050, 5:7, 737858__safe_solo_humanize….png) ImgOps Google
I'm a fan of Jo Jorgensen this year. She has no history of any racist, sexist, or other questionable views, and she wants to cut down on a lot of the administration choking our middle class citizens
Yeah, see, this right here, this is why I call you a bigot.. just look at how much you assume here.
Hell, you even start out outright saying anyone who supports Trump is racist, before having walk it back.
Why shouldn't you be called evil, with all your works ever made said to be garbage, because of your bigotry?
Isn't fair fair?
If someone would call me "evil" for being against racism, good
. I want to be evil to them. Because they stand against everything that I stand for.
File: 1596070385991.png (184.58 KB, 1190x970, 119:97, Detective Pinkie Pie.png) ImgOps Google
>>6056>what would it take?
it might take that video remaining on the internet long enough for people to see it. I myself still haven't seen it, so I just have to move forward without that knowledge.
In regards to harry potter. Totally agree. I like my mystery novels to not contain actual magic. And a proper sleuth should have a magnifying glass
The video is still around, it's just not linked to his Twitter anymore. But reputable people have said they saw him post it and there's screenshots of it being on his twitter before being removed.
Is harry Potter a mystery?
I don't know if we're even near the topic now, but fair.>>6059
I'm 100% voting JoJo. It's not too late to move your support everyone!>>6060>>6062
Like I alluded to earlier, I think that's good and okay? You shouldn't tolerate everything, even if some people think you're evil. And that can be reversed to be about Rowling, who doesn't tolerate trans people, and in turn people are going to think she's evil, and that's just kinda how things go. Calling each other evil isn't something we have to avoid doing.
I consider this an election too important to vote third party, personally. But it's something I can understand doing.
I wish we had one of those "first pick, second pick" typw of systems. Then I wouldn't have to worry about a wasted vote.>>6062
Again, you presume their reasons using your own bigoted bias.
I guess there's no convincing you, though. Not with her dogmatic devotion like that.
>>6066>Not with her dogmatic devotion like that.
Who's? Rowling's? I'm not even a fan of her or Harry Potter.>>6065
I still think that being transphobic the way she has been is a bad thing to be. It spreads unhappiness and makes other people's lives difficult. She could not be that way if she wanted.
I just don't find calling things evil productive. It certainly isn't going to convince them, and as to your own ideals, I'd suggest it locks you into a presumption of self certainty.
You don't listen to the devil, regardless of his arguments.
To me, it's just a bad thing to do all around. It results in unjust treatment, division, unnecessary hostility, and like I already mentioned a degradation of ones humility in understanding they do not necessarily know all.
Deciding your opposition is evil is the first step on the road to becoming a cultist, I see it.
File: 1596070843428.jpg (59.94 KB, 1000x562, 500:281, 55592.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6064>rumors of a mythological stone that can grant immortality>a break in at the most secure bank in the world>increasing rumors about the return of a once banished terrorist>odd happenings in the castle and whisperings behind closed doors>students investigating rumors and whispers to uncover the _____ surrounding this mythical stone>ominous warnings about returning to school>reports unexplained incidents in the school>talk of an ancient enemy come back to life>harry hearing voices in his head>investigations about possible sources for the voices and incidents>an adventure into the bowels of the castle to uncover the _____ surrounding literal writings on the wall in blood
I could go on, but yes. Harry Potter is and has always been a children's mystery series set in a world where magic exists.
Autocorrect seems to have messed something up there something. Was supposed to be something along the lines of "your".
The point being, your presumption that everyone who disagrees with you is racist, and consequently evil, results in you not bothering to listen to their perspectives, positions, or arguments, in an honest manner. Rather than give the benefit of the doubt, you jump to condemnation.
Like I said, you don't listen to the devil, regardless of his arguments.
Point being; that kind of religious certainty is not something I am like to convince you is improper
>>6070>The point being, your presumption that everyone who disagrees with you is racist
No I don't. I believe that people who support a racist are racists. Who look the other way when racist rhetoric is spewed are complacent in racism. >Rather than give the benefit of the doubt, you jump to condemnation.
Give them the benefit of what
doubt. They aren't going to convince me that racist things aren't racist. Just like I'm not going to convince them that racism is bad.
File: 1596071375589.jpg (68.25 KB, 625x790, 125:158, sicp-twi.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Yeah, a Condorcet system of voting would be ideal.
There's also Approval Voting, which is less complicated to implement. Basically, each voter picks of threshold of approval and fills in the circle next to each candidate that he/she approves of. A downside to approval voting is that the threshold of approval generally needs to be chosen strategically.
File: 1596071462689.png (68.97 KB, 230x300, 23:30, twilight-drinking-coffee-w….png) ImgOps Google
>>6073>I believe that people who support a racist are racists.
What if both candidates running for election are racists, but one is much worse racist than the other? Would someone who votes for the lesser of the two evils still be a racist?
And if they disagree with you that the person they support is a racist?
If they disagree that the redic you claim is racist, is racist?
I do not consider it evil to unknowingly commit some sin. If you accidentally steal a cookie, not realizing it wasn't up for grabs, I certainly don't think you should burn in hell.>Give them the benefit of what doubt. They aren't going to convince me that racist things aren't racist. Just like I'm not going to convince them that racism is bad.
How about the benefit of not assuming THEY think it is racist?
That should be a really easy step. At the very least you can assume that they believe what they're telling you. Why do you presume they're lying to you?
Good question! Racism is a spectrum. On the most light end of the spectrum, it's more useful to educate those people by saying "Hey, that's racist", because they may not even know that it was. A person like that might actually be willing to listen to you on why that was racist and change their behavior. If a cadidate is like that, because of the circumstances of their upbringing, I don't think it's fair to call that person "racist". Ignorant, sure.
Trump (and his supporters) are much much farther to the other side of that spectrum. Telling them "hey, that's racist" does nothing because they KNOW it is. They are going to make excuses and try to explain away why it wasn't racist, rather than listening to any arguments.
If it's a choice between those two kinds of people, you ARE better off with the former, and trying to discuss with them the issues.
>>6081>Telling them "hey, that's racist" does nothing because they KNOW it is
I disagree; I do not believe he is racist.
Are you going to call me a liar?
He never said anything about plantations.
Yes, that line was tone-deaf. But I believe what he meant to say was "Trump is a racist, and if you're black and you vote for him you are voting against your own self interest and against progress." The way it came out was really dumb, though. No one said Biden was perfect or even ideal. Our system has a lot of problems, but if we have to use Biden as the door toward progress then so be it.
As much as I want to run a preferences system. A friend pointed out to me that that system simply shifts the complication onto how you tally the votes. Here's a great video explaining it.
So you accept that your statement you made in >>6081
"Telling them "hey, that's racist" does nothing because they KNOW it is" was false, based on a presumption that is not accurate to reality.
This appears to me to be the very foundation of the term "bigotry".
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.
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/
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.
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.
File: 1596073024497.png (693.43 KB, 960x600, 8:5, 995295_700246260000497_355….png) ImgOps Google
I too, vote for a return to talk about Magical Mystery Novels
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
>>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
Then to bring it back to the original point; what makes JK Rowling a bad person?
So some kinds of bigotry are acceptable?
do you mean by "bad person"?
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
File: 1596146368105.png (177.67 KB, 384x383, 384:383, 1595964695895.png) ImgOps Google
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!
>>6135>After all, its a justification for murder so the belief itself legally rises to a clear and present danger to life and rights.
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
Ah, I see.
Even so, I do not believe an opinion represents a "clear and present danger".
Beliefs are not actions
All action begins with belief. >>6137
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.
>>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.
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?
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.
I don't tend to hang out with literal children, you're right. >>6245
Minthorse isn't a good example for anything.
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.
So when you were young, you hung out with older men the entire time?
That's messed up.