- Critical thinking and analysis NEEDS to be part of education when it comes to literature. So much shit went over my head as a kid with these books. I was deconstructing them a bit even BEFORE Rowling shat the bed.
- We have more and BETTER LGBTQ+ representation in media, much as the reactionaries are trying to crack down on it. I was excited when Dumbledore was confirmed as gay because *that was the only explicitly LGBTQ+ character in **any** media I knew back then.* Now? Lol. Lmao, even. Pathetic.
- We need more children’s literature that tries to show them better alternatives to the systems of oppression that exist now. We don’t need boarding school fantasies - we need stories that deconstruct and interrogate the notion of them in the first place.
When someone writes a book series that is just one red flag after the other, maybe look a bit closer at the person before you put them up as a paragon of decency.
If you get to be a wealthy, famous author surround yourself with people who will tell you the truth and not let you descend into a far right, negative feedback loop of propaganda about a minority group, not people who will agree with your uninformed, paranoid, borderline insane ramblings because they are financially dependent upon you.
Also if you come at the Doctor you best not miss.
My niblings are fans of Pottersville*, and about
the same age as the character Lolita…. creepy.
*A transparent reference to a portion of “It’s a Wonderful Life” wherein the protagonist wishes himself into an alternate reality where he was never born and a corrupt ruthless rich old white man (subtle, Frank Capra!) rules his hometown, and has even changed the town’s name. Its similarity to “Pottermore”, a previous name for the Wizarding World website, being quite apt
Don’t ever allow one creator’s IP to shape your entire personality. Even if that creator never does anything problematic, you’re still allowing yourself to become complicit in not thinking for yourself. You should never agree with absolutely everything someone says without question.
First it taught me that no one should live in a closet. Next it taught me that its author thinks that a minority group once in that closet doesn't exist, and that the ones who are out and proud have far too many rights which cause her great distress.
Minorities must have some rights, but not too much, in her worldview. And I'm very kind here, since we're talking about a Holocaust denier who's friends with Matt Walsh
From Harry Potter, I feel that my interpretation of the text has still given me some positive things, even if I've learned since that the author didn't intend them quite as positively as I believed she did. I think a lot of other people are the same - the people who criticise Rowling most are those who truly loved her books growing up and took them as a message of acceptance and welcoming of anyone who was a bit different, and will continue to stand up for that. And I actually think that makes the Harry Potter community one of the most interesting fandoms in the world - that they absorbed what they believed the text to say so much that they even used it against its creator when she abused her position.
From JK Rowling, I've learned that it is essential to remember that whatever a celebrity is known for in public, you don't actually know them or have any idea what they're like in their personal lives. This I think is something to bear in mind for every famous person - if you don't know someone, you shouldn't form an opinion of them as a human being, only of the things that they do. (And I still don't know JK Rowling personally, so in the interests of consistency I also have to grudgingly apply this the other way around. If I ever happened to meet her, I'd try my best to treat her neutrally and give her a blank slate as a human being - but I'd still be upfront that I think her behaviour is utterly disgusting.)
I don't agree that 'if ten people sit at a table with a Nazi, there are eleven Nazis'. Sometimes there are, but sometimes there aren't. It depends on whether the other ten people are overlooking the Nazi's Naziism, or calling it out.
You are ignoring the point of the expression.
If you are sitting down, in the terms of the expression, you are providing them implicit support. You don’t get to rewrite the terms of the expression to justify it.
In their defense, if you interpret as literally sitting at a table where there is a nazi (and autistic people in particular are prone to interpreting things literally), you wouldn't know if some of the people at the table are quiet out of self preservation. For example, you could try to claim that Jewish people who went into hiding were implicitly supporting nazis by hiding instead of actively fighting back. But that would be unempathetic and ignorant to claim.
I understand though that "sitting at a table" actually means willing to tolerate, collaborate with, and give a platform to people, rather than literally existing near them.
Let's not forget that the majority of trans people are also autistic.
If you look at the response to my reply that they gave it is quite obvious that this isn’t what they meant.
Maybe don’t tell an autistic person that the guy downplaying Nazism at them might just be doing it because *they’re* autistic, I know you didn’t mean it but that’s sort of an indirect insult to my intelligence.
OK but you are referring to diplomatic negotiation with nazis.
Diplomatic negotiation involves compromise on both sides. If one side wants a whole group of people dead, the "diplomatic" solution would invariably involve doing something that harms that group that they want dead.
You can't negotiate with people like this. All you do is harm innocent people by trying to mollify people driven by hate
I just want to make clear, in case it wasn't already, that I wasn't referring to JK Rowling when I said this. In her case, she absolutely is just glorifying exactly what these people she's associating with are doing.
I don't believe that's always the case though, and I do think that talking as though it is has the potential to cause harm. For instance, in the UK Jeremy Corbyn was constantly accused of belonging to/supporting terrorist groups because of having met with them and colloquially having referred to them as 'friends'. This was deliberately misleading, and ignored the fact that all of this was done in the context of trying to achieve peace.
Just on a personal level, I have friends who hold views I find absolutely horrific. That doesn't mean that they themselves are horrible people - some of them I've known to be exceptionally kind in their personal lives, and I tend to find that the views they hold are because they've been deliberately misled by someone else. And I try to keep those people in my life, because I feel like I can't reasonably expect them to change their views unless they know people who are willing to patiently and kindly call it out, every single time. Anything else just makes people withdraw even more strongly into their echo chambers. (I do also appreciate that not everyone has the energy to deal with these matters, but I think it's important that those who do have the energy make an effort to do so.)
- Critical thinking and analysis NEEDS to be part of education when it comes to literature. So much shit went over my head as a kid with these books. I was deconstructing them a bit even BEFORE Rowling shat the bed. - We have more and BETTER LGBTQ+ representation in media, much as the reactionaries are trying to crack down on it. I was excited when Dumbledore was confirmed as gay because *that was the only explicitly LGBTQ+ character in **any** media I knew back then.* Now? Lol. Lmao, even. Pathetic. - We need more children’s literature that tries to show them better alternatives to the systems of oppression that exist now. We don’t need boarding school fantasies - we need stories that deconstruct and interrogate the notion of them in the first place.
I agree on everything you said
When someone writes a book series that is just one red flag after the other, maybe look a bit closer at the person before you put them up as a paragon of decency.
I was a kid, I didn't see the red flags for what they were
If you get to be a wealthy, famous author surround yourself with people who will tell you the truth and not let you descend into a far right, negative feedback loop of propaganda about a minority group, not people who will agree with your uninformed, paranoid, borderline insane ramblings because they are financially dependent upon you. Also if you come at the Doctor you best not miss.
anyone who sees Lolita as a love story needs to be on a watchlist.
Yeah that was a cringe take even by her usual standards
My niblings are fans of Pottersville*, and about the same age as the character Lolita…. creepy. *A transparent reference to a portion of “It’s a Wonderful Life” wherein the protagonist wishes himself into an alternate reality where he was never born and a corrupt ruthless rich old white man (subtle, Frank Capra!) rules his hometown, and has even changed the town’s name. Its similarity to “Pottermore”, a previous name for the Wizarding World website, being quite apt
Don’t ever allow one creator’s IP to shape your entire personality. Even if that creator never does anything problematic, you’re still allowing yourself to become complicit in not thinking for yourself. You should never agree with absolutely everything someone says without question.
You're right
Twitter is a dangerous radicalisation machine and no one should be using it unsupervised.
Owl house better tbh
Yes. I should talk about it one day on this sub (trying to compare it to Harry Potter or something)
First it taught me that no one should live in a closet. Next it taught me that its author thinks that a minority group once in that closet doesn't exist, and that the ones who are out and proud have far too many rights which cause her great distress.
Minorities must have some rights, but not too much, in her worldview. And I'm very kind here, since we're talking about a Holocaust denier who's friends with Matt Walsh
From Harry Potter, I feel that my interpretation of the text has still given me some positive things, even if I've learned since that the author didn't intend them quite as positively as I believed she did. I think a lot of other people are the same - the people who criticise Rowling most are those who truly loved her books growing up and took them as a message of acceptance and welcoming of anyone who was a bit different, and will continue to stand up for that. And I actually think that makes the Harry Potter community one of the most interesting fandoms in the world - that they absorbed what they believed the text to say so much that they even used it against its creator when she abused her position. From JK Rowling, I've learned that it is essential to remember that whatever a celebrity is known for in public, you don't actually know them or have any idea what they're like in their personal lives. This I think is something to bear in mind for every famous person - if you don't know someone, you shouldn't form an opinion of them as a human being, only of the things that they do. (And I still don't know JK Rowling personally, so in the interests of consistency I also have to grudgingly apply this the other way around. If I ever happened to meet her, I'd try my best to treat her neutrally and give her a blank slate as a human being - but I'd still be upfront that I think her behaviour is utterly disgusting.)
That fandoms exist
White people shouldn't be allowed to make fantasy racism metaphors.
People who force you to live in the closet are worse than literal god-like supervillains.
And look what she's doing
I don't agree that 'if ten people sit at a table with a Nazi, there are eleven Nazis'. Sometimes there are, but sometimes there aren't. It depends on whether the other ten people are overlooking the Nazi's Naziism, or calling it out.
You are ignoring the point of the expression. If you are sitting down, in the terms of the expression, you are providing them implicit support. You don’t get to rewrite the terms of the expression to justify it.
In their defense, if you interpret as literally sitting at a table where there is a nazi (and autistic people in particular are prone to interpreting things literally), you wouldn't know if some of the people at the table are quiet out of self preservation. For example, you could try to claim that Jewish people who went into hiding were implicitly supporting nazis by hiding instead of actively fighting back. But that would be unempathetic and ignorant to claim. I understand though that "sitting at a table" actually means willing to tolerate, collaborate with, and give a platform to people, rather than literally existing near them. Let's not forget that the majority of trans people are also autistic.
If you look at the response to my reply that they gave it is quite obvious that this isn’t what they meant. Maybe don’t tell an autistic person that the guy downplaying Nazism at them might just be doing it because *they’re* autistic, I know you didn’t mean it but that’s sort of an indirect insult to my intelligence.
No, I think that's wrong, and I think people who make that point expressly harm things like diplomatic negotiation.
I don’t care much for diplomatic negotiation with people that want me and those I love dead.
OK but you are referring to diplomatic negotiation with nazis. Diplomatic negotiation involves compromise on both sides. If one side wants a whole group of people dead, the "diplomatic" solution would invariably involve doing something that harms that group that they want dead. You can't negotiate with people like this. All you do is harm innocent people by trying to mollify people driven by hate
I just want to make clear, in case it wasn't already, that I wasn't referring to JK Rowling when I said this. In her case, she absolutely is just glorifying exactly what these people she's associating with are doing. I don't believe that's always the case though, and I do think that talking as though it is has the potential to cause harm. For instance, in the UK Jeremy Corbyn was constantly accused of belonging to/supporting terrorist groups because of having met with them and colloquially having referred to them as 'friends'. This was deliberately misleading, and ignored the fact that all of this was done in the context of trying to achieve peace. Just on a personal level, I have friends who hold views I find absolutely horrific. That doesn't mean that they themselves are horrible people - some of them I've known to be exceptionally kind in their personal lives, and I tend to find that the views they hold are because they've been deliberately misled by someone else. And I try to keep those people in my life, because I feel like I can't reasonably expect them to change their views unless they know people who are willing to patiently and kindly call it out, every single time. Anything else just makes people withdraw even more strongly into their echo chambers. (I do also appreciate that not everyone has the energy to deal with these matters, but I think it's important that those who do have the energy make an effort to do so.)