Wait… is that really on the table? If so, then I grudgingly have to take her side insofar as objecting to prior restraint or compelled speech. Being an asshole is a fundamental human right.
As fundamental as not having to put up with assholes.
You wanna do it? Go do it over there where no one else has to put up with your shit
There is no right to not have to put up with assholes.
You wanna do it? Go do it over there where no one else has to put up with your shit
Exercising your rights, I see.
There is no right to not have to put up with assholes.
Sure there is. It’s called freedom of association
It was not on the table.
Some rando posted on her Shitter account “vote for Labour, get two years” and Rowling responded with the quote in the headline.
If you read the article, they clarify that the Labour party wants to crack down on LGBTQ hate crimes, and nowhere is it said that they would make it illegal to use improper pronouns for others.
Fuck JK Rowling. What a bigot.
Always has been…
It’s just the kids reading her books 20 years ago didn’t recognize all the problematic shit she wrote till they grew up.
It’s just the kids reading her books 20 years ago didn’t recognize all the problematic shit she wrote till they grew up.
Adult here who was an adult when the books came out and recognized all the awful racist and sexist imagery. I have nothing new to add to the conversation, I’m just gonna vent. There were quite a few of us here and there who spoke up when the books were published, but we were significantly outnumbered and immediately drowned out by the “shut up and stop complaining” crowd. Yes, all this talk of “problematic” issues in the Potter books are old observations we’ve been rehashing for two decades…the goblins who run the banks are a horrifyingly obvious Jewish caricature, Chinese character Cho Chang’s first name is actually a Korean last name, the one black guy in the whole fuckin series is named “Shacklebolt” (seriously wtf), the one Irish character goes by “Seamus Finnegan,” the main female character Hermione is constantly referred to as “bossy”…just to name a few. JFC, what a shitshow.
Ok, one more example that got a lot of attention years back but sort of faded away from public consciousness: in the first movie there’s a bigass six-pointed star on the fuckin floor of Gringotts, of all places. You know, Gringotts. The bank…where the undeniably Jew-like goblins work. No fuckin shit, it’s right there, plain as day. That one still boggles my mind. I mean, what the fuck, man. https://i.postimg.cc/Jzx2hr31/happry-potter-1-star-of-david-gringotts.png
EDIT: Hey everyone, it’s been abuot an hour now and I just want to apologize for all this negativity. I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I’ve come to realize all the anti-this and anti-that complaints are really unfair and show only one side of JK Rowling. So I feel compelled to balance this out and remind everyone that she is also pro-slavery. Especially the kind of slavery that forces its slaves to work completely naked, and no one in the book has a problem with it except for the bossy lib girl that everyone hates.
Wow, I’m just realizing the deeper meaning behind gringotts being run by specifically goblins. I kinda knew the big-nosed people running a bank was rather stereotypical, and not in the just lazy way, but it made sense to me that fantasy goblins would hoard treasure, and never connected the two facts.
I was aware of the high amounts of tokenism, with that one irish character, that one black character, that one vaguely asian character, but that’s easier to rationalize away as using stereotypes to communicate things quickly. It’s all over fantasy; Lando is the one black guy, Gimli is the one Dwarf, Hagrid is the one (half-)giant. Looking back on it now, these tokens are pretty shallow, but at the time it was fairly standard. It’s when you get into the lore of these peoples that things get ugly. Often fantasy races are there for splashes of colour, or a simple analoge for some kind of politics, but the reasoning here is heinous, and everyone is just ok with it.
By the time these flaws surfaced, we were already invested in the decent storytelling, and the deep connections never got made. Then the author detonated and it’s only with that context can we see the signs that were right there.
It’s too bad that these stories were built on a bed of such horrible ideas. Some of them were nice.
That monologue (from one of the unambiguously “good” characters) about how it would be cruel to set the elves free, because of the joy they get from servitude? Even as a teenager, I recognised that as a messed-up sentiment, but my peers just said I was being too sensitive. Glad that you couldn’t let something like that slide nowadays.
I gotta say as someone who grew up with the books, I’m glad y’all noticed it because as a kid I sure didn’t.
A lot of fantasy from that era has a lot of issues, but when I compare something like Harry Potter to say Wheel of Time, Robert Jordan may have been getting off on his depiction of magic slavery but he at least wasn’t excusing it.
Depictions she made weren’t ok in the 90s. Her politics aren’t ok now. And there’s better stuff too now. Fantasy has gotten so much better in recent decades.
Harry Potter reached the height of its popularity in the 2000s/early 2010s, in a time when gay was still an extremely popular insult, feminists were the punching bags of the internet, holocaust jokes were a dime a dozen and anyone saying it wasn’t funny was an enemy to comedy itself, the biggest internet creators took literal pride in their content specifically being offensive (Smosh was the biggest example of this IMO), and saying you should respect people’s gender identities on the mainstream internet will get you labeled as an SJW and actual death threats thrown your way, so I’d also argue that Harry Potter not being seen as problematic was in part because mainstream society (not you obviously, but the broader internet/pop culture in general at the time) genuinely did not view those things as problematic. Like if JK Rowling said all the things she said about transgender rights in 2003, she would probably still end up in controversy but way more people would actually support her, would have probably split the fandom roughly down the middle as opposed to the overwhelmingly negative response she’s receiving in the 2020s. Or look at it this way: Harry Potter was most popular in the same time period when Family Guy was most popular.
As someone who devoured the books as a kid, I’ve been very disappointed in finding out JK Rowlings is a a TERF. Your post sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole and I’ve read up on some of the issues that people pointed out in the books. To me, some are valid, some seem to be a bit far-fetched…? For example, I’m not sure why she is labeled pro-slavery? Just because she writes that people in her fantasy world don’t seem to have a problem with it?
Not defending Rowling btw, just trying to understand some of the points better.
To be honest, there’s not that much problematic shit in her books. Some VERY light commentary on slavery and its place in a civilized society, maybe some questionable themes of segregation, but largely the books are about good triumphing over evil and learning to work as a team including with people that don’t look like you. They’re just not overly well written books. She herself is the problematic person.
That can be arranged/realized you cunt/cunt
Does she realize what a complete arsehole that makes her look? She’d rather go to jail than treat people like human beings?
Personally I think pronouns should be abolished altogether - think of the cumulative time you could save by trimming the language like that. Trim the fat. After all, why use many word when few word do trick?
Completely agreed.
Pronouns stem from a time when it mattered whether or not a sentence was about a man or a woman. Sentences about men were given a higher status.
Once we accepted women are equal to men, it really doesn’t matter what the gender is of the person the sentence is about. They are human, that should be enough.
I’ve been replacing all pronouns with they/them for a while, even in my daily life.
Said same thing to friend, earlier. Said to was a stupid idea and need functional words to build meaningful sentences. Don’t agree with.
assuming you didn’t make a typo, this ain’t cute. The signal you’re sending is that respecting pronouns is a privilege you reserve for people you agree with.
It’s more that I’m giving her a taste of her own medicine. She doesn’t extend this basic courtesy to people she disagrees with, so why should anyone give it to her?
It’s hyperbole and she is referring to being forced to think a particular thing. She’s not wrong on the premise. But no one wants to analyze this because thinking and discord are hard.
She can still think whatever she wants, she just isn’t allowed to call people names they don’t want.
It is like me calling you “asshole” the whole time, and then proudly announcing that I would rather go to jail than stop calling you asshole.
