The internet is already exploding about Katherine Parkinson, John Lithgow and Paapa Essiedu signing up to the new Hogwarts adventures – and it hasn’t even started filming
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.
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.
Also you don’t get to decide what’s violence against a community. Just like I don’t get to say what black racism looks like, you don’t get to tell actual trans women what transphobia is.
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.
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
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.
Just not supporting jkr is a lot more clear-cut than all those other examples. It’s easy unless you start justifying it.
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.
You know systemic bigotry needs not intent, or context, from the individual, right?
I don’t know but I don’t disagree with it. It’s also not what I said.
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.
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.
And no, being forced to pay taxes is not the same as choosing to buy into something funding bigotry.
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”.
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.
Removed by mod
Except I’m not.
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
theretheir 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”.