is this about the NEW movie?, everyone said the new "lookalikes" of the og cast look like AI generated, and JKR have been criticized for trying to white wash the og cast because they dont like jkr for her transphobia..
Political Memes
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
I was looking for books to read for one of my students to read. (He loved the classroom edition for The Martian.) The book store had all of Harry Potter on the bottom shelf.
I don't know if its just not selling well, or the store owners are trying to promote not buying it. I hope its the latter.
Even if it weren't for JK Rowling I just don't care about this remake. It's unnecessary why are they doing it it's just weird.
No one seems to have a compulsion to remake other early 2000 movies into TV shows I don't know why they've got to start with Harry potter of all things. I would sort of get it if they just want to do tell more stories in the same universe but they're just going to rehash what's already being done. Why?
The explanation is that the movies famously cut out a LOT from the books, and fans were kinda sad about it, and the show aims to restore a whole bunch of that. In a vacuum, this would be a nice thing actually, like a Lord of the Rings show that restores the full content of all of Tolkien's books properly, the people want the Bombadil cut (oh look, what's Stephen Colbert doing over there?). Fans wanted it, and a lot of people will be very happy about it as long as it doesn't bomb. It's just a shame that Rowling will also be very happy about it, couldn't even wait for her to die so that they don't have to pay her.
I love HP. Hewlett-Packard? Oh fuck, that's worse.
I love hitpoints. A nice way to handle health in games.
I remember a guy in college for whom English wasn't his first language calling them hitting points. Makes sense!
There is always piracy though.
But no seeding!
Better to not engage with her output at all though. Plenty of other good shows and books in the world to enjoy, without providing further engagement and interest for her hate.
Nah, I'll probably just pirate it
I'd argue that's still indirectly helping to a smaller extent by keeping the fandom alive. Although, one could pirate the game and donate the money that would go towards buying it to a trans related charity or something (Trevor Project?)
I recon this is a fringe opinion but i would much prefer embrace and transform the fandom into something explicitly inclusive and progressive, many aspects of the wizarding world have so much whimsical potential to explore human expression and identity. This is also why so many (ex) potterheads are queer.
I reject Rowling as the creator, most of it builds on pre existing ideas (The worst witch, existing folklore). All she really did was stumble on a good mix and then copyrighted it.
The fandom took that mix and have expanded it much further then Rowlings tiny brain can handle and it brought them together, i hate to lose what we had because of some corporate leech that sucks money out of it.
Now about this series, obviously she is going to profit from any profit its gets, so giving them profit is unethical, likewise hyping up the show without a critical perspective is also bad because others may then buy it or merch.
But it’s still that same mix of potential. The people who make the show may not all agree with Rowlings and reflect their own visions into it. Just like the original cast distance itself from her and also managed to project more than Rowling could even comprehend that world could contain. It’s at least worth a pirated watch to celebrate what it could be, while holding a critical perspective of the flaws it will certainly have.
Hatsune Miku wrote Harry Potter
Winky got fired from her job as a slave and became an alcoholic. That's what slave owners said would happen to black people when abolition came. The books are evil.
The house elves are the single most fucked up parts of the books for a number of reasons. And Winky is a particularly unfortunate example.
But devil's advocate, Winky didn't become an alcoholic because she as no longer a slave, per se, and definitely not because she was lazy or whatever stereotype slavers would suggest of black people. She became an alcoholic because she was extremely depressed. A) She grew up indoctrinated into this service role and felt like she had failed her mother's memory by being removed from serving the family like she had. B) She was separated from her surrogate child that she'd single-handedly cared for for over a decade (who turned out to be a murderer and a wizard nazi, but she didn't know that) and couldn't even tell anyone about it. Not saying the situation isn't fucked and more than a little gross. But I don't see the alcohol use a problematic aspect with any deeper racial meaning here. It isn't a character failing to fall into depression in this situation, given the character's background.
Also, for what it is worth, after the initial shock of finding out what Barty Couch Jr had done and that he'd been kissed by the dementors, she did eventually accept things and come out of her depression. And she was among the elve's that fought in the Battle Of Hogwarts, making her a hero as well. It's a mixed bag, man.
I'm not sure it's the most fucked up. There's also the time Harry, Ron, and Hermione were staying at Grimmauld Place over Christmas, and when they decorated the those, they put little Santa hats and beards on the severed slave heads by the door.
I can see the reasoning, although those expansions would be better off connected to a different work.
The age-old question...Can you separate the art from the artist?
Yeah but only after they're dead when they're not getting royalties anymore.
after they're dead when they're not getting royalties
Or actively trying to do harm.
Yes, but you can't separate your money you spend on their products from them. That's why pirating is the morally correct thing to do in that situation.
I can, but why would I? There's already more art than I can consume in a lifetime, made by people who weren't evil
This is not that question though.
The question of separation of art and artist is about if you should judge the art based on the artist. That is not required or even the criticism.
In fact, most people don't even say that HP is bad because of jk rolling. They say, it is bad to pay for HP products because jk rolling gets money from it.
I am fairly certain that people would be fine with someone pirating HP movies and watching them. Publicly screening is a different story.
https://vger.to/sopuli.xyz/comment/22643123 evidence for my claim.
It's Rowling, btw
I don't respect her enough to care.
As someone who lives under the rock. I heard her opinion on trans but made me wonder what was with the trans character in Hogwarts Legacy? Did the company placed the character to troll her or something?
The lead designer was a neo Nazi youtuber. The trans character was probably studio mandated diversity for PR reasons, or a rebel faction of actual progressives on the dev team.
Hyperbole
Except that for all of her anti-trans stuff, she never advocated for killing trans people or anything of the sort. Or did I miss something?
shes harming through rhetoric and influence, and also funding anti-trans bills, and that leads to death or injury.
If you take healthcare away from trans people, suicide numbers go up. And she wants to take healthcare away from trans people and shove us back in the closet. She's chosen to attack kids, the most vulnerable of us. I believe she's already taken lives through her lobbying.
the suicide numbers go up?
So, a common metric people bring up in discussions of trans people that make their way into politics is 'trans suicide rates'. Republicans tend to mention it in reference to "We shouldn't let anyone be trans, because trans people commit suicide often," and Democrats tend to argue "Trans suicide is so high because they get degraded by society, and aren't allowed to express themselves."
Yeah not exactly Democrats and Republicans, but fugget it gets the point across of who tends to argue what. I would say Conservative or Liberal, but even that isn't exactly nuianced enough.
so different people have different "explanations" for the suicide rates. has there been any unbiased evidence to explain it?
Yeah, sure. Here's some research by the government that assessed the impact of gender affirming care and legal recognition on suicidal thoughts. More healthcare meant fewer suicidal thoughts. https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/population-groups/lgbtqia-sb-people/gender-affirmation
thanks, i'm reading this link and looking for data about suicide rates. this report is talking about a collection of self-reported data about suicidal thoughts, which many people can have and fortunately not go through with it.
I also see a statistically significant correlation, and i'm still looking for a reliable causation and data on suicide rates. how do we know if the lack of gender affirming care directly leads to increased suicides in a systemic pattern? perhaps the same people who cannot access it also are likely to have other things in life that could cause terrible suicidal thoughts or actions. i'm wondering how we can rule this out.
You want causation? How about a study that looked at the suicide attempts per year before and after anti-trans state laws were passed? https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01979-5
good for them for having such a large sample size. i admit i'm confused though, the results are an increase "by 7–72%."? i wonder what is up with this huge range. how can we have confidence in this?
i wish the abstract explained what types of anti-trans laws were passed, cause of course different laws end up having different effects. that could explain the uncertainty in the results range. in this case we're concerned with how a lack of gender affirming care would directly influence systematic suicide rates, so I'm still looking out for more evidence on that topic.
Well, confidence interval and p value aren't the same thing. They're related, but different. You've identified that there's a big confidence interval. But p value is what's really important, because that tells you if the results are statistically significant. Now here's a maths trick: if the confidence interval of the null hypothesis overlaps with the confidence interval of the result, then it won't be significant. But if the confidence intervals don't overlap, then your p value is smaller than 0.05; it's significant.
Now here's the data from the study:

The black circles represent years where the suicide attempt rate was not significantly different from baseline. The white circles are years where there was a significant difference to the baseline rate. So you can see that before these laws are passed, suicide rates are pretty much holding steady, and then on the second anniversary of the law's enactment, it's way up.
Now here's the trick. That 7-72% is not a confidence interval. So it's not actually related to significance. See, in the first year after the anti-trans laws were passed, for the teenage sample group, there was actually a significant effect. a 7% rise. Just very barely. You can see how the confidence interval line goes nearly all the way down to baseline. Second year, that's way up. 72% up. So that's the 7-72%. 7% is the first year, 72% is the second year.
So yeah, we're pretty fucking sure this is because of the laws.