The people talking abour piracy as if this is just a monetary battle. Its not. With each piece of content we consume we are changed. What content you consume has influence on what you think, what you say, what you do. By choosing to consume content, even if no money changes hands, is still consenting to be changed by content sourced from a person with hate in their heart.
I do not think it healthy to consume content made by hateful people.
There are other options to consume, and potentially even, maybe the time spent consuming harry potter would be better placed meditating and introspecting to become a better person outside of additional influences, or even interacting and sharing experiences and insights with family and friends.
Choose love, reject hate. Money is a secondaey medium.
By choosing to consume content, even if no money changes hands, is still consenting to be changed by content sourced from a person with hate in their heart.
“Not one drop” reworked for the era of media consumption. Piss on that.
What this means, in practice, is that you don’t consume media created by people whom you have found out are evil in some way. You’ll shrink your horizons, but not away from those who can fly under the radar.
What are you afraid of? That your beliefs are so fragile, that you’re so weak willed, that you will be turned to evil not even by reading propaganda, but by reading fiction that doesn’t even feature the hatred that concerns you?
Or is it, as I suspect, that you are concerned not with turning evil but with the appearance?
All science is built on the backs of the “content” created by generations upon generations of our predecessors, many of whom were far from saintly.
Schrödinger was a pedophile, but his equations are some of the most important and beautiful equations in physics.
Newton was an asshole, but his contributions to math and science are unavoidable in any STEM field.
To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.
I don’t have a horse in this race. Maybe it is beneficial to boycott the consumption of Harry Potter media in general. But you are wrong to assert that content created by a hateful person is fundamentally unhealthy to consume.
Im cautous to call discoveries a form of created content, likewise those things are peer reviewed amongst a group - you could theoretically rediscover shrodingers equations without ever learning from shrodinger, but almost certainly you could never rewrite harry potter without having read harry potter - thats because on some level, hp is a reflection of jkr herself - shrodingers equations are not a reflection of shrodinger, but of reality itself (possibly!)
To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.
Is an odd take to me, should we all read mein kampf? Its just content right? Is it hateful to not read mein kampf? I dont think so. I dont think i am ignorant for not having read mein kampf either. Seperate the art from the artist? I do not. You seem to think i should tolerate intolerance - but it is good, in my mind at least, to draw boundries - but by your argument, any intolerance is hatred - all nazis, pedos, other evil-doers can be tolerated at your table, but not mine, i will blanket disregard them and protect my table from their influence.
At most generous, ill look at their content through a purely analytical and guarded lense - treating it as dangerous, because i beleive it really is.
(And for clarity, im not equating mein kampf and harry potter, nor jkr and hitler, its just a clearer example to make my case with)
No…? Why would it be hateful to avoid reading a book because you don’t like its contents? But it is wrong to assert that it is impossible for a hateful/evil person to create non-hateful/evil content.
While mein kampf is a piece of negative media, it is not the only content created by Hitler. I would wager that if I showed a person some of Hitler’s paintings (without telling them who authored it), they would not become more hateful just from viewing the landscapes and buildings. In fact, people tend to like paintings in general so it might even have a positive affect on their mood despite it being content created by an evil man.
If you don’t like content, it is not hateful to ignore it. But to assert that absolutely nothing good can come from a person who has done evil things is wrong. You cannot be certain that there is no good within the bad anymore than you can assert there is no bad within the good.
Any intolerance is hatred
That is not what I said. Furthermore, I fully believe it is okay to hate things. I hate cruelty; I hate the bourgeoisie; etc. My point was that your assertion was backwards and contradictory. You were the one advocating for hatred while ending your statement with “choose love, reject hate.” I was pointing out that contradiction not asserting the morality or immorality of hatred.
Schrödinger and Newton didn’t create stories, they discovered laws that explain reality. Their contributions were tested repeatedly. There’s nothing fundamental about Rowling’s work; this is a specious comparison.
True, but their proofs had to be read. Their papers and books had to be read in order to be tested. Furthermore, those books and letters and papers contained content that was not purely mathematical. Especially in Newton’s case. Hell, iirc he disses on other mathematicians frequently in some of his works. But did that make everyone who read them hateful? Did people reading his works negatively impact the world? Would it have positively impacted the world if everyone had decided not to read any of newtons work? Or Schrödinger’s?
No. Of course not.
Now I’ll admit math was a poor choice for comparison to Harry Potter, but the point remains that bad people can make/discover/influence good things. And consuming media related to a bad person is not guaranteed to have a negative impact on your wellbeing.
I do not think it healthy to consume content made by hateful people.
First, I question the very premise. That consuming otherwise benign content is somehow “not […] healthy” if the creater is themselves hateful, whether or not that hate is present in their content. A) by what do you mean it is unhealthy? For your mind? Your eternal soul? What? B) If the content does not display any of the specific hatred of their creator, by what means would that hatred effect me at all? Psychically?
Second, let’s assume the premise is true. Tell me then, how would you ever avoid this unhealthy situation in your life? Sure you could avoid the openly hateful creators, but how would you ever know who is secretly hateful? Many a creator of beloved works, has turned out to be an asshole or a bigot. And many of those were only revealed as such after those works became beloved. Surely, many more were also created by hateful people who were not and may never be publically revealed as such. Given you have concluded that the content and monetary support is not all that matters, but also the internal character of the creator, how do you know your health isn’t be constantly compromised by consuming work by people you don’t know are actually hateful in some way.
Third, it seems kind of a moot point anyway in this case. Rowling only started revealing her transphobia in 2019. By that point the entire novel series, the entire film adaptation series, a spin off play and companion book, the first two of three spinoff films, and any number of video games, toys, and other merchandise had all been released and consumed by billions. The vast majority of our generation has consumed a ton Harry Potter media in many forms before her bigotry was on full display. I personally read most of the books over and over as a kid. I gotta tell you, if my health was damaged because she was secretly a hateful bitch at heart, then that damage is done.
I get wanting to take a moral highground, being disgusted by the association, and just wanting to distance yourself from Rowling and leave it behind. I truly get that and think it is entirely justified and valid. But don’t project some sort of damage onto people who don’t do the same, or attribute some sort of complicit immorality to them because they don’t take the same stance as you. That’s where I strongly disagree.
Sure you could avoid the openly hateful creators, but how would you ever know who is secretly hateful?
You don’t know what you don’t know. Nobody should be blamed for liking HP while they were unaware of Rowling’s bigotry and how she funds hate groups.
But once you do know, you now have agency and responsibility. Absentminded consumption of content is not consequence-free, the information landscape you inhabit changes you. Do you ever catch yourself using a word more often after hearing your favorite YouTuber use it? That’s just one small perceptible example of what OP means.
This is why it’s important for articles like this to inform and remind people to be critical viewers, to be skeptical about what they watch, who they follow.
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.
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.
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.
Keeping the brand in the collective zeitgeist - even if you didn’t buy anything - brings Rowling money through word-of-mouth marketing
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
Right but they were specifically making a point that it wasn’t (just) a financial question. That consumption of content with a hateful source is enough to be detrimental regardless of the benign nature and qualities of the content itself. I wasn’t arguing that you should financially support hateful creators. I was questioning their premise that the creator’s nature determined how the content affects you even if the content doesn’t reflect their nature.
It is a whole other thing to financially support it. And also another thing to consume new media that may or may not be me little more than a cash grab. It is also further complicated by the fact that this is an HBO property, meaning that financial support technically comes from subscriptions, whether or not you actually watch the content in question or other shows entirely. I wasn’t getting into any of that though.
Those are completly valid problems with my statement, we might have different perspectives and wont find agreement, i accept that and still love you and anyone who chooses to consume the content. Ill also say that i was major harry potter fan in my youth, went to the book and movie releases, etc, etc. Harry potter had a special place in my heart.
1a: the distinction between mind and soul is one better discussed in person over hours and hours, ill let you choose whichever fits best within your model of reality. But as far as unhealthy i mean it in the same way as getting mcdonalds - even if you get a salad and water at mcdonalds, you are still reinforcing a pattern where mcdonalds is an acceptable place and source of food, even when we know the food isnt healthy and how they source the food isnt healthy (references to slavery, abuse, theft, environmental degredation, etc - if unfamiliar with these concerns from mcdonalds and other fast foods ill make it your homework as itd be a lot to type out and im no expert to speak authoritatively) - harry potter has a number of stereotypes and problematic areas baked into its universe - maybe eveb innocently from jkr’s perspective - but weve seen what shes manifested into - and further - because of the links and references to other issues it can soften your rejection of other harmful content (for example, theres a very specific representation of goblins in harry potter, and becoming familiar with that representation, innocently, can make you desensitized to other problematic sources that move that interpretation of goblins to antisemitism, just one example of unhealthiness i talk about)
1b: this is what i reference to as underlying patterns, by watching the new hp, is a knife going to jump out of the screen and stab you? No. But you might internalize some concepts from the universe and story that later forms the seed of hatred, or sends you on a path/rabbit hole that does do damage to you. in a certain perspective im sure someone would call that psychically. Just as one double cheeseburger dosent kill you on the spot and even tastes good, in aggregate and over time and repitition, it will decrease your quality of life and if unlucky, might actually kill you.
2: have i consumed unhealthy content before? Certainly and plenty of it, further its likely ive consumed unhealthy content even today unknowingly. But i am now aware and am actively trying to manage the content i consume and being more aware of how it can influence me because i want to think and act in a certain way, and that requires dilligence, just as im dilligent about weeding my garden, just as im dilligent about going to the market for groceries and not going to mcdonalds. I didnt know jkr was hateful as a kid, but now i do. I cant and wouldnt change the past, but i can and would change the present. Its what we do now.
I hope that answers your questions, i dont know how to make my answers shorter, and typing this on the phone is exhuasting, this is a conversation better had with voice and a back and forth dialog.
This is the take. And also, piracy is still support. Every creator who supports the free sharing of information recognizes that piracy is basically free word of mouth advertising.
I grew up with the books, but as I learned about Rowling’s shittiness, I stopped consuming any Harry Potter content. Now the franchise is something I don’t care about, don’t even generally think about unless someone else brings it up. More of my time can go to those creators who deserve it.
Sometimes consuming content that isn’t good can be a way to see just how disagreeable it is. Though admittedly all my consumption of awful content is usually through a third party analysing what went wrong.
The people talking abour piracy as if this is just a monetary battle. Its not. With each piece of content we consume we are changed. What content you consume has influence on what you think, what you say, what you do. By choosing to consume content, even if no money changes hands, is still consenting to be changed by content sourced from a person with hate in their heart.
I do not think it healthy to consume content made by hateful people.
There are other options to consume, and potentially even, maybe the time spent consuming harry potter would be better placed meditating and introspecting to become a better person outside of additional influences, or even interacting and sharing experiences and insights with family and friends.
Choose love, reject hate. Money is a secondaey medium.
Watching a bad remake of a mediocre YA novel isn’t changing anybody.
And given their treatment of all the other properties, does anyone believe HBO will even get to the end of the series? This will be dead by season 3.
“Not one drop” reworked for the era of media consumption. Piss on that.
What this means, in practice, is that you don’t consume media created by people whom you have found out are evil in some way. You’ll shrink your horizons, but not away from those who can fly under the radar.
What are you afraid of? That your beliefs are so fragile, that you’re so weak willed, that you will be turned to evil not even by reading propaganda, but by reading fiction that doesn’t even feature the hatred that concerns you?
Or is it, as I suspect, that you are concerned not with turning evil but with the appearance?
All science is built on the backs of the “content” created by generations upon generations of our predecessors, many of whom were far from saintly.
Schrödinger was a pedophile, but his equations are some of the most important and beautiful equations in physics.
Newton was an asshole, but his contributions to math and science are unavoidable in any STEM field.
To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.
I don’t have a horse in this race. Maybe it is beneficial to boycott the consumption of Harry Potter media in general. But you are wrong to assert that content created by a hateful person is fundamentally unhealthy to consume.
Im cautous to call discoveries a form of created content, likewise those things are peer reviewed amongst a group - you could theoretically rediscover shrodingers equations without ever learning from shrodinger, but almost certainly you could never rewrite harry potter without having read harry potter - thats because on some level, hp is a reflection of jkr herself - shrodingers equations are not a reflection of shrodinger, but of reality itself (possibly!)
Didnt know he was a pedo though, yuck: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccacoffey/2022/01/24/schrdinger-pedophilia-the-cat-is-out-of-the-bag-box/
Is an odd take to me, should we all read mein kampf? Its just content right? Is it hateful to not read mein kampf? I dont think so. I dont think i am ignorant for not having read mein kampf either. Seperate the art from the artist? I do not. You seem to think i should tolerate intolerance - but it is good, in my mind at least, to draw boundries - but by your argument, any intolerance is hatred - all nazis, pedos, other evil-doers can be tolerated at your table, but not mine, i will blanket disregard them and protect my table from their influence.
At most generous, ill look at their content through a purely analytical and guarded lense - treating it as dangerous, because i beleive it really is.
(And for clarity, im not equating mein kampf and harry potter, nor jkr and hitler, its just a clearer example to make my case with)
No…? Why would it be hateful to avoid reading a book because you don’t like its contents? But it is wrong to assert that it is impossible for a hateful/evil person to create non-hateful/evil content.
While mein kampf is a piece of negative media, it is not the only content created by Hitler. I would wager that if I showed a person some of Hitler’s paintings (without telling them who authored it), they would not become more hateful just from viewing the landscapes and buildings. In fact, people tend to like paintings in general so it might even have a positive affect on their mood despite it being content created by an evil man.
If you don’t like content, it is not hateful to ignore it. But to assert that absolutely nothing good can come from a person who has done evil things is wrong. You cannot be certain that there is no good within the bad anymore than you can assert there is no bad within the good.
That is not what I said. Furthermore, I fully believe it is okay to hate things. I hate cruelty; I hate the bourgeoisie; etc. My point was that your assertion was backwards and contradictory. You were the one advocating for hatred while ending your statement with “choose love, reject hate.” I was pointing out that contradiction not asserting the morality or immorality of hatred.
Schrödinger and Newton didn’t create stories, they discovered laws that explain reality. Their contributions were tested repeatedly. There’s nothing fundamental about Rowling’s work; this is a specious comparison.
True, but their proofs had to be read. Their papers and books had to be read in order to be tested. Furthermore, those books and letters and papers contained content that was not purely mathematical. Especially in Newton’s case. Hell, iirc he disses on other mathematicians frequently in some of his works. But did that make everyone who read them hateful? Did people reading his works negatively impact the world? Would it have positively impacted the world if everyone had decided not to read any of newtons work? Or Schrödinger’s?
No. Of course not.
Now I’ll admit math was a poor choice for comparison to Harry Potter, but the point remains that bad people can make/discover/influence good things. And consuming media related to a bad person is not guaranteed to have a negative impact on your wellbeing.
you want someone to excuse you, it’s not going to be me.
I have no clue what this means but okay thanks I guess
Ok, so, I have a few problems with this take.
First, I question the very premise. That consuming otherwise benign content is somehow “not […] healthy” if the creater is themselves hateful, whether or not that hate is present in their content. A) by what do you mean it is unhealthy? For your mind? Your eternal soul? What? B) If the content does not display any of the specific hatred of their creator, by what means would that hatred effect me at all? Psychically?
Second, let’s assume the premise is true. Tell me then, how would you ever avoid this unhealthy situation in your life? Sure you could avoid the openly hateful creators, but how would you ever know who is secretly hateful? Many a creator of beloved works, has turned out to be an asshole or a bigot. And many of those were only revealed as such after those works became beloved. Surely, many more were also created by hateful people who were not and may never be publically revealed as such. Given you have concluded that the content and monetary support is not all that matters, but also the internal character of the creator, how do you know your health isn’t be constantly compromised by consuming work by people you don’t know are actually hateful in some way.
Third, it seems kind of a moot point anyway in this case. Rowling only started revealing her transphobia in 2019. By that point the entire novel series, the entire film adaptation series, a spin off play and companion book, the first two of three spinoff films, and any number of video games, toys, and other merchandise had all been released and consumed by billions. The vast majority of our generation has consumed a ton Harry Potter media in many forms before her bigotry was on full display. I personally read most of the books over and over as a kid. I gotta tell you, if my health was damaged because she was secretly a hateful bitch at heart, then that damage is done.
I get wanting to take a moral highground, being disgusted by the association, and just wanting to distance yourself from Rowling and leave it behind. I truly get that and think it is entirely justified and valid. But don’t project some sort of damage onto people who don’t do the same, or attribute some sort of complicit immorality to them because they don’t take the same stance as you. That’s where I strongly disagree.
You don’t know what you don’t know. Nobody should be blamed for liking HP while they were unaware of Rowling’s bigotry and how she funds hate groups.
But once you do know, you now have agency and responsibility. Absentminded consumption of content is not consequence-free, the information landscape you inhabit changes you. Do you ever catch yourself using a word more often after hearing your favorite YouTuber use it? That’s just one small perceptible example of what OP means.
This is why it’s important for articles like this to inform and remind people to be critical viewers, to be skeptical about what they watch, who they follow.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1AXQ36kG258
So a better educated / more critical thinking audience is able to consume content from a malicious or hateful creator with better shielding?
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.
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.
You said there was problematic stuff and it didn’t bother you enough to quit the garbage. Says so much about YOU.
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
valid points on the books/movies but this new series will directly fund transphobia and bigotry.
It’s a cash grab and an attempt to distance the original cast, all of whom viciously disagree with Rowlings bigotry.
Joyless, souless propaganda and funds drive. If you were such a dedicated potter fan, why would want to see its corpse puppeted to pay for hate?
Right but they were specifically making a point that it wasn’t (just) a financial question. That consumption of content with a hateful source is enough to be detrimental regardless of the benign nature and qualities of the content itself. I wasn’t arguing that you should financially support hateful creators. I was questioning their premise that the creator’s nature determined how the content affects you even if the content doesn’t reflect their nature.
It is a whole other thing to financially support it. And also another thing to consume new media that may or may not be me little more than a cash grab. It is also further complicated by the fact that this is an HBO property, meaning that financial support technically comes from subscriptions, whether or not you actually watch the content in question or other shows entirely. I wasn’t getting into any of that though.
Those are completly valid problems with my statement, we might have different perspectives and wont find agreement, i accept that and still love you and anyone who chooses to consume the content. Ill also say that i was major harry potter fan in my youth, went to the book and movie releases, etc, etc. Harry potter had a special place in my heart.
1a: the distinction between mind and soul is one better discussed in person over hours and hours, ill let you choose whichever fits best within your model of reality. But as far as unhealthy i mean it in the same way as getting mcdonalds - even if you get a salad and water at mcdonalds, you are still reinforcing a pattern where mcdonalds is an acceptable place and source of food, even when we know the food isnt healthy and how they source the food isnt healthy (references to slavery, abuse, theft, environmental degredation, etc - if unfamiliar with these concerns from mcdonalds and other fast foods ill make it your homework as itd be a lot to type out and im no expert to speak authoritatively) - harry potter has a number of stereotypes and problematic areas baked into its universe - maybe eveb innocently from jkr’s perspective - but weve seen what shes manifested into - and further - because of the links and references to other issues it can soften your rejection of other harmful content (for example, theres a very specific representation of goblins in harry potter, and becoming familiar with that representation, innocently, can make you desensitized to other problematic sources that move that interpretation of goblins to antisemitism, just one example of unhealthiness i talk about)
1b: this is what i reference to as underlying patterns, by watching the new hp, is a knife going to jump out of the screen and stab you? No. But you might internalize some concepts from the universe and story that later forms the seed of hatred, or sends you on a path/rabbit hole that does do damage to you. in a certain perspective im sure someone would call that psychically. Just as one double cheeseburger dosent kill you on the spot and even tastes good, in aggregate and over time and repitition, it will decrease your quality of life and if unlucky, might actually kill you.
2: have i consumed unhealthy content before? Certainly and plenty of it, further its likely ive consumed unhealthy content even today unknowingly. But i am now aware and am actively trying to manage the content i consume and being more aware of how it can influence me because i want to think and act in a certain way, and that requires dilligence, just as im dilligent about weeding my garden, just as im dilligent about going to the market for groceries and not going to mcdonalds. I didnt know jkr was hateful as a kid, but now i do. I cant and wouldnt change the past, but i can and would change the present. Its what we do now.
I hope that answers your questions, i dont know how to make my answers shorter, and typing this on the phone is exhuasting, this is a conversation better had with voice and a back and forth dialog.
If you’re paying for HBO for any reason, you’ve already given JK more money than any pirate ever will.
This is the take. And also, piracy is still support. Every creator who supports the free sharing of information recognizes that piracy is basically free word of mouth advertising.
I grew up with the books, but as I learned about Rowling’s shittiness, I stopped consuming any Harry Potter content. Now the franchise is something I don’t care about, don’t even generally think about unless someone else brings it up. More of my time can go to those creators who deserve it.
Sometimes consuming content that isn’t good can be a way to see just how disagreeable it is. Though admittedly all my consumption of awful content is usually through a third party analysing what went wrong.