News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Reminder: "separating the art from the artist" is an approach to engaging with an artwork, and is a separate question from whether or not you should engage with an artwork when doing so has real life consequences.
Whether or not you should consume HP Lovecraft media despite the fact he was a racist is entirely up to you because he is long dead. He doesn't make any money. He isn't even racist any more. Because he's dead.
When you consider whether or not you consume Harry Potter media, you must consider that JK Rowling will make money and will donate that money to anti-trans groups. If you still go on to buy licensed merch, or pay a streaming service to watch it, you will literally be helping to propogate transphobia. Continue to enjoy anything you currently own if you want. That is where separating the art from the artist comes into it. But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.
It’s up to society if we should separate a work from its artist. We’ve collectively agreed that this work shouldn’t survive the century. Not only that, you can’t separate an artist from their work when they’re literally tangled in it and controlling it
Only applies to artists who can no longer enjoy the spoils.
☠️
I agree with everything you wrote up to this point. I'm not really a Harry Potter fan and I certainly don't think much of J.K. Rowling since she revealed her true nature but this last bit is a very slippery slope.
You know the slippery slope fallacy right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
I had not seen that before but I'm not sure it applies. Perhaps the wording was poor to indicate my intent but it was not my intention to indicate "a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends" as that article says.
I was trying to communicate that making a broad statement, like OP did, that promoting Harry Potter online indicates transphobia or transphobic behavior by itself ignores both intent and context, which I think matters.
They're not saying it's transphobic, but it is promoting transphobia. Which isn't really any better in my books.
It literally is not, not without context and intent.
Somebody going online and posting, "I grew up with Harry Potter and loved it and I'm interested to see the new [whatever]" is not equivalent to promoting transphobia.
You cannot make a black and white determination like that without context and intent. Without those you're just making assumptions.
It is equivalent, because in this case, it is literally promoting transphobia. One of the worlds leading transphobes will directly benefit from the profits this show makes, and will directly turn those profits against dismantling the rights of trans folk.
This isn't an analogy, it's not dramatic license, or over exaggeration.
If you know she will hurt trans people with the money she makes, and you do things that continue to make her money (which includes just advocating for continued consumption of her work), it is black and white, and the context and intent are quite visible.
By itself, it doesn't mean someone is transphobic. But it does mean that at the very least, personal nostalgia is more important to that person than the harm their actions cause. And that is plenty of intent and context.
adverb: literally in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
It literallyis not. I posted the definition in case you needed it. Purchasing or consuming a product is not exactly the same as promoting transphobia.
By your logic every person in the United States who pays any kind of taxes that go to the federal government is promoting transphobia. If you've ever shopped at a store that employs a transphobe, you're promoting transphobia. If you've ever watched a movie or tv show that has a transphobic actor in it, you're promoting transphobia. Doesn't matter if you know it because, as you put it, they directly benefit from your money.
The only part of this that's true is "advocating for continued consumption of her work" and even that's a stretch because a person could have any number of reasons. Also, simply expressing interest in something is not advocating for it, it's sharing an opinion or preference.
It doesn't mean that, that's what you're assuming because that's what it means to you.
You do not make the rules for other people.
I am so tired of this "fall in line or else" attitude everyone seems to have.
You want to preface it with "in my opinion" you go right ahead and we'll have to agree to disagree but it is by definition and factually not literally promoting transphobia.
As I said, if not voluntarily giving money to or making excuses for someone who will use that money to hurt people is too much to ask of someone, then their context and intent is quite clear.
Including yours.
Its not.
Thanks for demonstrating. You can imply I'm transphobic or promoting transphobia but I'm literally not. I'm pretty comfortable with the balance I've struck and, quite honestly, I'm not being transphobic or promoting transphobia because I don't care if someone's trans or not. It's not really any of my business.
My general philosophy is that people are free to be whomever they want, believe whatever they want etc. as long as they aren't hurting others or forcing it on other people against there wishes.
This is why I don't like JK Rowling, but I wouldn't like her if she was actively working against black people or people with physical or mental disabilities or funding Israeli efforts in Gaza or any number of other things.
I don't agree with lots of people's beliefs but I actively dislike them when they begin to weaponize those beliefs.
What are some other fictional universes that you like?
I'm not sure I understand. I made no reference to fictional universes.
Except they aren't giving money to someone who will use it for harm. They are giving it to whatever production company has created the series.
It is only after this, and through a convoluted system of ownership and IP laws, that the production company is forced to give a percentage of its proceeds to the hateful bigot.
If you want to criticize anything, criticize that system. Not individuals for wanting to engage in simple creature comforts that they find enjoyable.
Except for the fact that the money spent on the movie directly funds transphobia via JK Rowling....
You get she's literally doing that right?
No, it indirectly funds her through a convoluted system of ownership and IP law.
The problem isn't people consuming media. The problem is the system that funnels wealth into the pockets of bigots.
You get that the only person who controls what JK Rowling does is her, right?
You don't have to like that someone may choose to continue to consume Harry Potter but trying to claim they are directly promoting transphobia unless the context and/or the intent is there.
Someone with a track record of transphobic behavior, sure. Someone who is posting about it in spaces intended for trans people, especially if that space has already clearly communicated their stance on it, maybe.
Context and intent matter.
Excuse me while for not caring about the difference when all the same, the money is still harming my community.
Your money is harming your community.
By your logic every person in the United States who pays any kind of taxes that go to the federal government is promoting transphobia. If you've ever shopped at a store that employs a transphobe, you're promoting transphobia. If you've ever watched a movie or tv show that has a transphobic actor in it, you're promoting transphobia. Doesn't matter if you know it because, they directly benefit from your money.
Everyone has choices to make, however the context and intent behind those choices matters.
I love how you chose an example I literally can't control like taxes.
And your right, I can't pick and choose every single thing. But you better believe there's a lot of media I won't enjoy because of actors either. Tom Cruise being one.
Intent matters. But when a community tells you hey, this action, that you could easily not not do, is harmful to me and my community.
Yes I do judge you for that choice.
You do have a choice; you could choose not to and face whatever consequences with your moral conviction intact.
This is you're right but it still doesn't make it literally promoting transphobia.
If it quacks like transphobia and it promotes transphobia.....
This is about the response I expected. Too bad.
Except I'm not.
collapsed inline media
I didn't do any of these things.
I'm disappointed you resorted to personal attacks but not surprised. I hope the world gets to a point where trans folks are able to be whomever they want free from persecution. Until then please stay safe and take care of yourself and each other.
I am going to block you now but that's mostly because I get the sense you have no interest in anything I have to contribute on Lemmy and only a little because I think you may follow me to other communities to downvote me there like you did on every comment here. Even the ones not in response to you.
Just not supporting jkr is a lot more clear-cut than all those other examples. It's easy unless you start justifying it.
Your logic is performatively neutral and comes from a place of callousness and complacency.
All of this counter-discussion on this topic is bad faith and/or political trolling and should be treated as such by mods and future readers.
The minute you step back and realize that somebody is really trying to argue against letting go of Harry Potter from such a weird angle, you realize how bad a take it really is. It's so bad, that it's hard to even be taken seriously beyond political strategy and wasting the time of the real people here who believe in standing up for what's right in such a shitty time in the world.
It's petty and shitty. You can consume Harry Potter and similar content if you wish, nobody will stop you. But anybody with half a brain realizes that the ethical move is to just let it go. Move on.
I haven't argued that at all. What I have argued is that context and intent matters when it comes to an individuals actions and, while you're free to judge away, just because someone lives ~~there~~ their life in a way you don't like doesn't automatically make them transphobic or mean they are literally promoting transphobia.
Edit: I had to come back for this bit.
I'm guessing this wasn't your intent but it reads like you should only take a stand when it's easy.
You know systemic bigotry needs not intent, or context, from the individual, right? You seem to be arguing that your personal lack of hatred towards a group, and lack of direct harm, means your actions can't be bigoted. And no, being forced to pay taxes is not the same as choosing to buy into something funding bigotry.
I don't know but I don't disagree with it. It's also not what I said.
I'm not. My feelings on the subject, hate or lack thereof, have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that consuming Harry Potter content or talking about it online is not equivalent to literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. To make that determination requires context and intent.
They are not directly equivalent though it's interesting that's the only example I provided you're addressing.
You're not forced. You have the choice to not and face those consequences. It's an awful and unfair choice that nobody should even have to consider but it's there. By choosing not to refuse to pay doesn't mean you're literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia and that's the point.
You can disagree with someone's choice to consume HP content or their decision to discuss it online but that doesn't make it literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. That requires context and intent.
Transphobia, by definition, consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender or transsexual people, or transness in general. Consuming HP content or talking about it does not meet that literal definition, until or unless there's context to support it and/or expressed intent, e.g. someone says "I hate trans people so I bought all the HP books to show my support".
That is "classic" bigotry, if you will. Systemic bigotry does not need these feelings, as you thoughts on the subject mean nothing to those who are the targets of the bigotry, as buying things that enrich their persecutors, and actively donating to those people ideologically, bears no significant difference to the persecuted, in any practical manner. Also, if it is something I can practically avoid, living in the world I was born into, then I do. Entertainment is like the poster child of things you can choose to avoid. Suggesting people live an impossibility does no good, but that is not what is happening with people telling people to drop JK Rowling's IP.
Systemic bigotry refers to ingrained biases and discriminatory practices within institutions and systems that disadvantage certain groups of people. An individual consuming Harry Potter content is not "systemic bigotry".
I've never said anything about "donating to those people" as a direct donation to JK Rowling in the current context would demonstrate intent to support that ideology. The sole act of purchasing a product, in and of itself, does not, regardless of how the persecuted feels about it.
No it's not. It's quite clear that the messaging is "drop JK Rowling’s IP (do what we as a group want) or you're literally transphobic and/or promoting transphobia". Again, a single choice to consume HP content without context or intent factually and by definition does not mean someone is being literally transphobic and promoting transphobia.
Edit: as I continue to learn things from Lemmy it's come to my attention that the stance that Consuming Harry Potter content or talking about online makes you guilty of literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia is a form of purity testing.
JK Rowling is rich enough to fund anti trans groups for decades without any input from us. Boycotting HP has no effect on trans rights.