• Ginny [they/she]
    link
    fedilink
    148
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Angular
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Can we pirate it. Or will that just make it more popular

      Edit: or should we just boycott

      • Ginny [they/she]
        link
        fedilink
        261 month ago

        Pirating it wouldn’t make it more popular if you kept it to yourself, but talking about it after you watched it probably would.

        • Angular
          link
          fedilink
          81 month ago

          Anyway, will most probably be shit. 99% of series these days are bad and just money grabs.

          • @wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            There are usually some good scenes or themes or characters that make some of the 99% worth a watch. The Netflix Avatar series was shit that didn’t understand the tone of the original, except for the scenes added for Lu-Ten’s Funeral and the 41st Division. These alone added enough for me to begrudgingly accept the existence of the live-action series. There are usually some things like that in most of the new ones I’ve seen.

      • @Hozerkiller@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 month ago

        Don’t deprive yourself of happiness to spite her. That being said the books have several reasons to not read them on their own merits. Don’t forget “dobby is weird for not wanting to be a slave” is an actual plot point in the books. Not to mention the goblins. If you want to revisit a beloved fantasy series, give LOTR another read/watch.

        • @floofloof@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          121 month ago

          Count the number of times female characters are described as “shrill” or “screeching” etc. There’s a weird misogyny and dedication to patriarchy that just oozes out of the books.

        • Angular
          link
          fedilink
          31 month ago

          And Hobbit!

          I was actually planning on qatching Star Wars, we have a long weekend, but LOTR is also a great idea. Thanks.

    • 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

    • @LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      41 month ago

      But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.

      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.

        • @LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.

            • @LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              71 month ago

              it ispromoting transphobia

              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.

              • Ada
                link
                fedilink
                English
                8
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                “I grew up with Harry Potter and loved it and I’m interested to see the new [whatever]” is not equivalent to promoting transphobia.

                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.

                You cannot make a black and white determination like that without context and intent.

                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.

                • @LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  6
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  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.

                  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.

                  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.

                  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.

                  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.

                  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.

                  • Ada
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    7
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    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.

                • @LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 month ago

                  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.

                • @Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  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.