Honestly, just using this as an excuse to reiterate that J.K. is using her Harry Potter wealth to actively hurt trans people.
Honestly, just using this as an excuse to reiterate that J.K. is using her Harry Potter wealth to actively hurt trans people.
Imo you can still be a fan. Yes, the books have aged poorly and it’s good to be aware of the odd implications of some of the lore but the most important thing should be not to give her any money over it.
Yup. If you’re a fan, just pirate all Harry Potter stuff.
The problem is that even when you pirate the stuff you are maintaining its popularity. You’d have to pirate everything, never buy merch, talk about it, participate in anything related to it, never show the pirated media to any friends, etc. What is the likelihood of that?
Same as music. Separate art from the artist.
Separate the artist from money 🏴☠️
We don’t give money to transphobes if we can avoid it.
Books, movies and games are very easy to avoid.
…and? I don’t need to avoid the content, just giving them money. Easy
fmhy.net
And… that is different from separating art from the artist.
Hope that helps.
How? Definitions I can find are all similar to this:
Source
That is all. Consuming the art and appreciating it no matter who created it. This doesn’t mean it has to be purchased. The idea is simply that you don’t have to say, burn Rowling’s books that you have purchased once upon a time as mentioned in the opinion article. Or delete some artist’s music from your music player, put movie DVDs into microwave oven, delete all photos of a certain painting, etc…
How is the sentiment of separating the artist from the art different from not giving money to transphobes?
Literally every part of it.
Hope that helps.
I’ve been trying to understand what you mean, but I just can’t.
Anyway, idea we have is the same.