General Entertainment JK Rowling Doesn't care about "Legacy"

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

My position largely comes down to this:  if a member of a marginalized group feels threatened by rhetoric, I -- as a card-carrying member of practically every non-marginalized group in existence -- am in no position to challenge that individual's expression of that sentiment at all.

No matter the expression? I don’t think you actually believe that all expression based on subjective feelings is valid.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

No matter the expression? I don’t think you actually believe that all expression based on subjective feelings is valid.

 

I've honestly been giving this quite a bit of contemplation in the last few years and I've gradually come around to the notion that the subjective -- if not the totality of everything -- represents a significant enough proportion that its importance is minimized at our peril.

 

I don't know how absolute that is, but I've decided to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the expression of such sentiments from marginalized individualized, even if "only" as a means of checking my unconscious biases. 

[stepee]

I guess I will just say I don’t think there is any positive intent to this thread and the subsequent commentary and it only provides an outlet to defend JK and try to diminish people’s concerns over her actions. There’s definitely no other value here beyond besmirching AC/DC. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

2 hours ago, stepee said:

 

While I definitely disagree that it’s “her” game (she had nothing to do with it) or that buying the game affects her one way or the other in any meaningful way, I do believe that hell would be worth it because the level of detail is just crazy.

I mean she gets paid for it and makes more the more successful it is. Plus she’s said that she sees HP’s continued success and popularity as validation for her opinions. So you put money in her pocket and added to a statistic she sees meaning you agree with every opinion she has. 

[stepee]

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I mean she gets paid for it and makes more the more successful it is. Plus she’s said that she sees HP’s continued success and popularity as validation for her opinions. So you put money in her pocket and added to a statistic she sees meaning you agree with every opinion she has. 

 

Actually the key was already purchased from some country with a bad exchange rate by a key reseller so technically I did not give her (…or the dev) a cent!

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, stepee said:

 

Actually the key was already purchased from some country with a bad exchange rate by a key reseller so technically I did not give her (…or the dev) a cent!

[Spork3245]

The person cracking the game is also a transphobe. EVERYONE IS SCREWED NO MATTER WHAT

[stepee]

Pineapple on pizza > defending JK

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

11 hours ago, Demut said:

Related question: Would you call insulin a "harmful" drug because it has lead to the death of people?

are we going with the “if everything is harmful then nothing is” defense? 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Plus she’s said that she sees HP’s continued success and popularity as validation for her opinions.

 

I don't think this is true. Do you recall where she said this?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I've honestly been giving this quite a bit of contemplation in the last few years and I've gradually come around to the notion that the subjective -- if not the totality of everything -- represents a significant enough proportion that its importance is minimized at our peril.

 

I don't know how absolute that is, but I've decided to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the expression of such sentiments from marginalized individualized, even if "only" as a means of checking my unconscious biases. 

 

I can appreciate your desire here, but I think it is unintentionally infantilizing people to start from the position that they can't be wrong because they are from a marginalized group. Subjective feelings themselves are valid, you mostly can't help how you feel about things, but everybody still controls how they respond to those feelings.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

I can appreciate your desire here, but I think it is unintentionally infantilizing people to start from the position that they can't be wrong because they are from a marginalized group. Subjective feelings themselves are valid, you mostly can't help how you feel about things, but everybody still controls how they respond to those feelings.

 

I can certainly see the risk of what you describe.

 

However, I've decided to err on the side of the "unintentional infantilization" (or in the words of the denizens of the "Intellectual Dark Web", the "soft bigotry of low expectations" - a phrase that invariably comes out of the mouths of people with a distinct deficiency of melanin content) as I believe that the probability of "unintentional harm" is greater in the other direction.

[skillzdadirecta]

To be clear, I don't think supporting Harry Potter or any property you love means that you support the viewpoints of the author of said work or those involved with its creation. I believe I've said before that I think you can seperate art from the artist. I FIRMLY believe that personally. What i find interesting is that some folks don't seem to believe that but still go to all kinds of contortion and twisting of their own personal belief system in order to justify continuing to buy and use products they enjoy with a clear conscience. I know most of the folks here don't agree with Elon Musk for example... yet you still use Twitter. Does that mean you support Musk and his viewpoints? No. But you ARE putting money in his pocket and how you feel about that is up to YOU. Buying Hogwarts Legacy is putting money in JKR's pocket whether you like it or not and I find it interesting that people seem to want to try and ignore that uncomfortable reality for themselves. See this is what happens when nuance leaves discussions and complex issues are boiled down to strictly binary black and white viewpoints. You end up not leaving room for YOURSELF when issues become more complicated than "good vs bad" or "right vs wrong". I don't think anybody is a bad person for buying Harry Potter or supporting the NFL. But OWN that shit. That's all I'm saying.

 

39 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I can certainly see the risk of what you describe.

 

However, I've decided to err on the side of the "unintentional infantilization" (or in the words of the denizens of the "Intellectual Dark Web", the "soft bigotry of low expectations" - a phrase that invariably comes out of the mouths of people with a distinct deficiency of melanin content) as I believe that the probability of "unintentional harm" is greater in the other direction.

Oh I DEFINITELY have thoughts on this having been the subject of it myself from a well intentioned screenwriting teacher in college. I NEVER forgot that experience and how it made me feel at the time. Here's the thing that I think a lot of non-melanated folks don't understand. People of color and marginalized groups don't want "special" treatment. They want "equal" treatment. That's gets lost because deep down inside, people in the priviledged group believe that they themselves are special  and equal treatment means taking that AWAY from them. Like I said, this is an incredibly nuanced discussion that I am thoroughly convinced this board specifically and the internet at large is not equipped to have

 

I guess I myself am guilty of erring on the side of low expecations 

[TUFKAK]

As I mentioned in the hogwarts thread, the trans community isn’t a mono culture, the loudest voices do not speak for the whole community. Denise is and was more than just a trans woman and she didn’t need others to speak for her.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Oh I DEFINITELY have thoughts on this having been the subject of it myself from a well intentioned screenwriting teacher in college. I NEVER forgot that experience and how it made me feel at the time. Here's the thing that I think a lot of non-melanated folks don't understand. People of color and marginalized groups don't want "special" treatment. They want "equal" treatment. That's gets lost because deep down inside, people in the priviledged group believe that they themselves are special  and equal treatment means taking that AWAY from them. Like I said, this is an incredibly nuanced discussion that I am thouroghly convinced this board at large is not equipped to have

 

And those are EXACTLY the thoughts I genuinely want to hear from someone like you!

 

Because I am a member of that privileged group, I genuinely do not know when my baises are negatively impacting others.  This is why I'm trying to follow a course of attempeting to mitigate harm. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

And those are EXACTLY the thoughts I genuinely want to hear from someone like you!

 

Because I am a member of that privileged group, I genuinely do not know when my baises are negatively impacting others.  This is why I'm trying to follow a course of attempeting to mitigate harm. 

And I appreciate that you are at least willing to listen and learn. Too many well intentioned non-melenated/ non-marginalized folks aren't because it raises so many uncomfortable truths about themselves and their place in society. This is a debate that is happening RIGHT now in progressive, social justice spaces. Waaay too deep to get into here, but yeah. The fact that this topic is seen as some kind of stealth defense of JKR and her positions is CRAZY to me right now. I literally said nothing of the kind and posted the story with very little commentary deliberately. The internet is weird man 

[TUFKAK]

6 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

And I appreciate that you are at least willing to listen and learn. Too many well intentioned non-melenated/ non-marginalized folks aren't because it raises so many uncomfortable truths about themselves and their place in society. This is a debate that is happening RIGHT now in progressive, social justice spaces. Waaay too deep to get into here, but yeah. The fact that this topic is seen as some kind of stealth defense of JKR and her positions is CRAZY to me right now. I literally said nothing of the kind and posted the story with very little commentary deliberately. The internet is weird man 

No no, you see, the cis straight white men know what every individual of every marginalized community needs more than said members of community. And as we know, intersectionality only exists for non marginalized communities because if you are apart of that community that is your ENTIRE identity and aren’t allowed to be outside of that.

 

makes it easier for those people to virtue signal by being an ally on their social media profiles.

[GoldenTongue]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Oh I DEFINITELY have thoughts on this having been the subject of it myself from a well intentioned screenwriting teacher in college. I NEVER forgot that experience and how it made me feel at the time. Here's the thing that I think a lot of non-melanated folks don't understand. People of color and marginalized groups don't want "special" treatment. They want "equal" treatment. That's gets lost because deep down inside, people in the priviledged group believe that they themselves are special  and equal treatment means taking that AWAY from them. Like I said, this is an incredibly nuanced discussion that I am thouroghly convinced this board at large is not equipped to have

 

I guess I myself am guilty of erring on the side of low expecations 

I think that that is an important distinction; one that far too many fail to understand/recognize.  

 

But it is an incredibly nuanced and challenging topic.  My wife was the only white person in her class when working toward her MSW a couple years ago, and she became involved with a number of "conflicts" with other students based upon arguments and ideas that intersect pretty closely with some of the points noted by SFLU, sbl, and you.  As one example: there were several instances in group-based work assignments where my wife ended up taking on a somewhat managerial type of tact in terms of delegating work, because she felt as though the group (after multiple meetings) weren't making any progress in terms of assigning any sort of structure for workflow or responsibility.  Her assigning responsibilities and defining workflow caused a lot of friction with several team members who commented on all the micro-agressions that she was guilty of.  From the perspective of those other members of her cohort, it was (another) example of a white person taking charge of things because they felt that the minorities were incapable.  And when my wife tried to make it clear that race/culture had nothing to do with it, that she was just trying to facilitate a way in which the work could be done by the team...it almost seemed as though that made it worse, as though she was acting almost condescendingly in how she responded.

 

There were quite a few incidents along those lines during the course of her classwork; she learned a tremendous amount, as did I, in terms of how behaviors which seem entirely benign/normal to us can very easily be perceived in a much more negative light by those who come from a marginalized background.

 

If I'm being honest, I really struggled with some of the incidents that my wife told me about - she had/has definitely evolved her views to be much more closely aligned with what SFLU is striving for, but for me, I still struggle with this notion that in certain contexts, when in comes to discussions which involve those from one of those marginalized backgrounds, it may not matter if I am factually correct regarding certain particulars, simply because my own (privileged white male) background/upbringing precludes me from being able to speak with any real authority.  

 

A few books I read back then (WHITE FRAGILITY, and SO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT RACE, in particular) helped me gain a more nuanced understanding of those other perspectives, although I'd be lying if I said that I am as evolved as I would like to be.

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

No no, you see, the cis straight white men know what every individual of every marginalized community needs more than said members of community

Dude... you have no idea how true this is. Good friend of mine is a soon to be Law professor who does a lot work in the Juvenile Justice reform space and he talks about this ALL THE TIME. He's a black man and has had his experiences and viewpoints questioned by... non people of color. When he tells me these stories my amazed reaction is almost always "Where do they get their balls?!" The hubris would be admirable if it wasn't so infuriating 

[stepee]

44 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

To be clear, I don't think supporting Harry Potter or any property you love means that you support the viewpoints of the author of said work or those involved with its creation. I believe I've said before that I think you can seperate art from the artist. I FIRMLY believe that personally. What i find interesting is that some folks don't seem to believe that but still go to all kinds of contortion and twisting of their own personal belief system in order to justify continuing to buy and use products they enjoy with a clear conscience. I know most of the folks here don't agree with Elon Musk for example... yet you still use Twitter. Does that mean you support Musk and his viewpoints? No. But you ARE putting money in his pocket and how you feel about that is up to YOU. Buying Hogwarts Legacy is putting money in JKR's pocket whether you like it or not and I find it interesting that people seem to want to try and ignore that uncomfortable reality for themselves. See this is what happens when nuance leaves discussions and complex issues are boiled down to strictly binary black and white viewpoints. You end up not leaving room for YOURSELF when issues become more complicated than "good vs bad" or "right vs wrong". I don't think anybody is a bad person for buying Harry Potter or supporting the NFL. But OWN that shit. That's all I'm saying.

 

Oh I DEFINITELY have thoughts on this having been the subject of it myself from a well intentioned screenwriting teacher in college. I NEVER forgot that experience and how it made me feel at the time. Here's the thing that I think a lot of non-melanated folks don't understand. People of color and marginalized groups don't want "special" treatment. They want "equal" treatment. That's gets lost because deep down inside, people in the priviledged group believe that they themselves are special  and equal treatment means taking that AWAY from them. Like I said, this is an incredibly nuanced discussion that I am thoroughly convinced this board specifically and the internet at large is not equipped to have

 

I guess I myself am guilty of erring on the side of low expecations 

 

At a point I thought we mostly agreed on this subject so I don’t want to argue it any more because I think we mostly agree but I wasn’t expressing myself well.

 

So let me roll back and we can ignore that I didn’t actually give money to JK as I went with a key site and say I bought the game full price on Steam so it’s more direct.

 

I probably would have still done that as I don’t feel that purchase crosses a line, for my personal morals.  I however do not support her views, but I also don’t support many of the things behind things I purchase. I acknowledge that purchases I make, of which this is one, can have a negative effect on the world. I try to walk a balance for myself I’m comfortable with, but I can very easily admit it’s not perfect and it’s just what I’m personally comfortable with. 

 

I don’t think people who purchase this or say, watch a Woody Allen movie should be condemned. I think horrible people have made fantastic art.

 

Maybe we are getting lost in rhetoric and I apologize if I came off as rude and I didn’t mean to insinuate that you intentionally were trying to go in here and defend JK. I was trying to express why it rubbed me the wrong way and I may have done a poor job of explaining that. I felt that this topic was giving bait to people who DO have more nefarious reasons behind their argument and I was trying to explain that, not to insinuate anything negative about your character.

 

I also will admit that my initial post in here probably did not help matters, I should have been more clear that I want her dead because she’s a billionaire. Ok, sorry, that is another bad joke. I’m not really here sitting around wishing people dead all day.

 

My two points on this have always been I do not want people silencing the criticism against her just so discussion of the game is more pleasant and I don’t think people should be judged for playing the game (and I had this stance before I personally started caring about the game). 

 

So anyway, long rant, but I respect you as a poster so didn’t want to leave the wrong impression that I thought you were transphobic or anything like that.

 

Edit: And actually to make sure I’m not gas lighting you, I read back at some of my posts and I was definitely projecting issues I have with others onto you in the heat of the moment, and that is my bad

[TUFKAK]

23 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Dude... you have no idea how true this is. Good friend of mine is a soon to be Law professor who does a lot work in the Juvenile Justice reform space and he talks about this ALL THE TIME. He's a black man and has had his experiences and viewpoints questioned by... non people of color. When he tells me these stories my amazed reaction is almost always "Where do they get their balls?!" The hubris would be admirable if it wasn't so infuriating 

Dude they read a book! They know things ok, stop devaluating their experiences.

 

[stepee]

I do know that for me a lot of the times what makes nuance difficult is that I find nuance is often used by the wrong people to make the wrong points towards the wrong goals. I don’t want to give those spaces for them to use to their advantage so I can allow myself to adopt a sort of “fuck it” attitude and lean more towards rhetoric than I am normally comfortable with when I’m more clear headed.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

4 hours ago, stepee said:

I literally have no idea how anyone can listen to AC/DC unless that are at least half a handle deep

I like a few of their songs and I always find it appropriate when Highway to Hell comes on the radio when I'm driving to work.

[Guest]

There isn't a one size fits all way to interact with all people who happen to fall into a marginalized group, because they are all more than that group. Responding to bad actors treating all members of a group as monolithic in a bad way is not fixed by treating all members of a group in as monolithic but in a "good" way. My personal take from seeing this so often is that well intentioned in-group members will inadvertently act like marginalized people are broken in a way that means they need to step in on behalf of the marginalized person. There might be individuals who do need that, just as there are many who just need your voice of supporting echoing from behind them.

[stepee]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

There isn't a one size fits all way to interact with all people who happen to fall into a marginalized group, because they are all more than that group. Responding to bad actors treating all members of a group as monolithic in a bad way is not fixed by treating all members of a group in as monolithic but in a "good" way. My personal take from seeing this so often is that well intentioned in-group members will inadvertently act like marginalized people are broken in a way that means they need to step in on behalf of the marginalized person. There might be individuals who do need that, just as there are many who just need your voice of supporting echoing from behind them.

 

This is definitely the impression I get usually whenever I’m reading resetera. But also I’m not sure it’s always so well intentioned. Sometimes I think it’s mindless or in self interest. 

[Demut]

3 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I believe that the probability of "unintentional harm" is greater in the other direction.

How so? It's well-established in psychology that you do people a disservice by coddling them. Even (and especially) those with actual traumas. Only by having them confront those issues do they have any hope of overcoming them. I'm sure you've heard of exposure therapy before, it's been successful in treating all kinds of psychological (and even physical) illnesses. Safe spaces and constant, unconditional affirmations of their feelings are all well and good during moments where a person is at a serious low and just needs to recuperate. But it cannot be a regular feature of their daily lives, let alone their default mode of being. That's only going to cripple them mentally and emotionally and is about the worst thing you could do to them out of "compassion".

 

4 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

are we going with the “if everything is harmful then nothing is” defense? 

I don't know what "we" are going with () but I was going with the "What she's doing isn't actually harmful to an extent that is even remotely close to how beneficial her advocacy and philanthropy is". The insulin example was exemplifying this. Yes, people have died from using insulin but far, far more have been helped by it. Take another drug if you have an issue with that in particular. The "b-but it's only harmful when you take too much of it" rebuttal made no sense because that is true for virtually everything, by definition.

[Moa]

Yeah, but does she care about Hogwarts Legacy?

[Demut]

Askin' the real questions.

[Bacon]

Even I didn't buy or play Hogwarts.

 

 

[Nokra]

1 hour ago, Moa said:

Yeah, but does she care about Hogwarts Legacy?

How about Tron: Legacy?

[Guest]

Going back to the OP, the podcast is pretty interesting. I think it hits in a particular way for somebody who had their childhood primarily in the 90s.

[Demut]

On an only tangentially related note: When does childhood end/how long does it last? Do post-puberty teenage years still count? Last year of high school (or equivalent)? Age of majority?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, Demut said:

On an only tangentially related note: When does childhood end/how long does it last? Do post-puberty teenage years still count? Last year of high school (or equivalent)? Age of majority?

 

18 is the generally accepted age though it should really be 25.

[Demut]

Legally speaking or culturally? Or both? Would the average person include their 18th year of life (i.e. when they're 17) as part of their childhood? I'm just curious because personally I feel the differences between it and most of the preceding childhood are too large and too numerous for that to make sense to me. Making use of the concept of adolescence might help here. So:

Childhood > adolescence > adulthood > ...

 

And yes, yes, to old farts everyone under thirty is a kid

  

20 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

though it should really be 25.

Because of the neurological changes that happen till then?

[stepee]

First off tell us if you are a libertarian so we can know where this is going