this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
149 points (91.2% liked)

Political Memes

11438 readers
2623 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 49 minutes ago

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..

[–] MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

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.

[–] JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz 16 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I love HP. Hewlett-Packard? Oh fuck, that's worse.

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I love hitpoints. A nice way to handle health in games.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I remember a guy in college for whom English wasn't his first language calling them hitting points. Makes sense!

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There is always piracy though.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 points 13 hours ago

But no seeding!

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] hoch@lemmy.world -2 points 10 hours ago

Nah, I'll probably just pirate it

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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?)

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 8 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

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

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

I can see the reasoning, although those expansions would be better off connected to a different work.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

The age-old question...Can you separate the art from the artist?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah but only after they're dead when they're not getting royalties anymore.

[–] coalie@piefed.zip 4 points 11 hours ago

after they're dead when they're not getting royalties

Or actively trying to do harm.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 6 points 14 hours ago

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.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 5 points 14 hours ago

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

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] returningtheday@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 16 hours ago

I don't respect her enough to care.

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 5 points 19 hours ago

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.

[–] RevolverSly@fedinsfw.app 0 points 17 hours ago
[–] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth -3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 48 minutes ago

shes harming through rhetoric and influence, and also funding anti-trans bills, and that leads to death or injury.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] fipto@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

the suicide numbers go up?

[–] FatherPeanut@pawb.social 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] fipto@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

so different people have different "explanations" for the suicide rates. has there been any unbiased evidence to explain it?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] fipto@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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

[–] fipto@lemmy.world 1 points 56 minutes ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 23 minutes ago

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:

image

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.