this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
262 points (92.0% liked)
Television
2081 readers
413 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
- !movies@piefed.social
- !animation@piefed.social
- !trailers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
- Be respectful and courteous to all members.
- Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
- Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
- Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
- Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
- Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags.
List of Best Rated TV Series as voted by the Fediverse
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think this entirely misses the point.
The point of bringing critical thinking to bear is to discern the garbage and choose not to consume it.
Educating people about the harm bigoted content brings with it is the right thing to do.
But I do not think HP is bigoted content, no matter how bigoted its author is. It certainly has some problematic aspects to it, don't get me wrong. But I don't think that it ultimately champions, supports, or frames in a good light any form of bigotry. It, in fact, often does the exact opposite. I think part of what is so jarring about Rowling's bigotry is that it came out of nowhere for fans of her work. It is entirely unexpected because it is straight up antithetical to much of the messaging in her books. The irony is not lost on me, but I would rather use the anti-bigotry messaging in HP to inform my life and use it against the creator herself than to feel guilt or disgust over enjoying those stories, just because she is a cunt.
These stories that have been a part of my life since the time my first grade teacher read the first book to us until I drove myself to the midnight release of the 7th book 10 years later and even beyond that. The first book series that I ever willingly picked up and read myself after hating reading because of my ADD, that showed me I could actually love reading if I found the right story and stuck with it, even if I read slow. These stories will always hold a special place in my heart, and no one judging me on the internet nor that hateful bitch of an author will change that. I make no apologies for it.
As others have alluded, regardless of the content of the HP books or movies or games, JKR earns royalties and profits from HP as a brand. Keeping the brand in the collective zeitgeist - even if you didn't buy anything - brings Rowling money through word-of-mouth marketing, money she uses for hateful ends. I know some folks in my life, I bet you know some in yours, who will spend money based on FOMO, or nostalgia bait, or rage bait, without knowing who or what their money goes to.
This same conversation happened when Hogwarts Legacy was released, folks who said "its just a video game, calm down," were missing the point of the boycotts and protests. Funding HP funds JKR, which funds lobbyists to strip human rights away from human beings. The cause and effect here is well documented.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/02/jk-rowling-donates-big-money-to-anti-trans-group/
https://www.them.us/story/jk-rowling-fund-anti-trans-lawsuits
https://www.advocate.com/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-organization
https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashajokic1/jk-rowling-harry-potter-anti-trans
My personal consumption without giving her money does nothing to support the brand or market the product unless I go around advertising it for people. In which case it was the the purchase or the advertisement that are the problem, not the consumption itself. If I pirate a movie, a game, an audio book, etc. and don't go around talking up the property, I would be giving nothing either directly or indirectly to Rowling or any other producer of the content. Matter of fact, I could share access to the pirated materials to make my direct associates less likely to go out and purchase them on their own behalf, arguably denying them purchases they may otherwise have received from more detached and careless people in my circle. But that wouldn't stop people from hating on the consumption itself. I think that's silly.
Again, I don't disagree that providing financial benefit, vocal support, etc. to a hate monger is, at minimum callous negligence, if not complicity or active support of the hate mongering. But I do not think that separating the content from the creator(s) (particularly content that has deep personal and cultural roots for many, and has outgrown its creator in many ways), getting ahold of the content without financially supporting the creator(s), and consuming it without marketing it to others is to be in any way complicit with the creator's/creators' behavior and views.
Are you arguing just to argue at this point? Because it feels like you're moving the goalpost every time somebody corrects you and not entirely in a malevolent way, but more like a stubborn just-don't-want-to-be-wrong way
Funnily I feel the same way about everyone replying. The original comment in replied to was about how piracy didnt solve the problem because even consuming materials with a hateful creator was bad for your health. Then people keep coming back with stuff about financially supporting Rowling, which piracy does solve.
My goalpost hasn't changed, people just keep pushing back from different angles. My thesis is the same: Don't financially support Rowling, don't market for her work, and don't be complacent about hate mongering. But if you have access to the content for free and you wish to consume it, it doesn't hurt anyone to do so and it's nobody's business to judge you for it.
you don't, uh, find anything problematic with the goblin-like depiction of their bankers?
wow.
well you do you bud, there's no informing some folks no matter how obvious it is I guess.
Did you even read my comment? Like the very next sentence? I said that there is defintely problematic stuff. Very specifically I was alluding to the goblins, as well as house elves.
The depiction of the goblins is clearly problematic and parallels real world stereotyping and racism. It is gross, for sure, but I have always offered a little grace there. I have always sensed that it was never intentionally racist, but ignorantly played up a banking stereotype that was sourced in racism. By which I mean I think she was likely playing up cultural stereotypes about bankers and using goblins to exemplify those stereotypes without consciously considering where those stereotypes came from. That they were stereotypes about Jews in banking specificslly and that she was making insulting Jewish charactictures as a result. I don't know that it wasn't intentional, either, but either way it is still problematic.
Despite being the most egregiously racially problematic problem, it is, however, subtextual and a very small aspect of the books which are, far more often than not, actively about cooperation between different people, rejection of bigotry, and protecting others from that bigotry. That is my point.
You said there was problematic stuff and it didn't bother you enough to quit the garbage. Says so much about YOU.
"1 percent of the series is problematic, so you are morally required to throw away the whole thing." Cool opinion.
Not cool, just principled.
Dude you can admit you're into boy wizzard fantasy so much that racism doesn't bother you and that you don't mind financially supporting terf political attacks on lgbtq folk.
That's the principles you're exposing. Have a great life.
I'm gonna go pirate whatever the fuck I want and you can mind your own business or kiss my ass, cool? Cool.
nah, I'll judge your weak sauce morality and shitty choices and call it like I see it, that's the great thing about lemmy. Cool!
Just make sure you aren't consuming any media that might contain anything problematic. Or written by anyone problematic. Or produced by anyone problematic. Or financially benefiting anyone problematic. Wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite or anything.
Can't be watching Star Trek with all that racial stereotyping and sexism in the original series. Or Star Wars, with Jar Jar and Watto being racially problematic. Lord of the Rings has a distinct lack of female and non-white characters, and some anti-Asian undertones. There's a lot of problematic stuff in most old Disney movies, looney tunes and other cartoons, plenty of video games... No films starring or directed by Mel Gibson. Nothing involving Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, or Danny Masterson. Nothing produced by Miramax or the Weinstein Company (hope you weren't a Tarantino fan). So many pitfalls and all totally inexcusable to consume. Just make sure you purity test everything, my guy. Not even 1 percent, right?