this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
380 points (97.0% liked)

196

6804 readers
2109 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 10 points 1 hour ago

Just a few hours ago the social media algorithm gods decided to show me a video from an autistic woman who was basically saying exactly this. "Hey, my special interest is HP, but y'all need to understand that this isn't a 'Death of the Author' situation, Rowling is literally funding anti-trans bigotry and we need to not be complicit in that. I don't care if you pirate her stuff or buy second-hand or only read fanfiction, but don't give her money." Personally, I try to stay away even from secondhand consumption of her stuff because I just don't care about it, and I think it's at least best to avoid giving any positive or neutral (which to me includes any film/book review that isn't primarily focused on highlighting Rowling's bigotry, even if it's largely negative on the storytelling, prose, or dialogue) attention to the media in her franchise, but I can understand some people have a much stronger attachment to it and want to minimise the harm they cause by continuing to watch through pirated means.

But it's not really my place (as a cishet white dude) to say whether or not that's the correct choice for other people to make, so I won't judge any choice anyone makes that doesn't involve giving her money through purchasing official products.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

The Daily Tism

[–] vapeloki@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

I would approach this from a different direction:

There is not nearly enough trans harrpy potter rule34 content out there. There needs to be a looooot more

It might've been fun at first, but at this point the damage has been too extensive for that light hearted trolling

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 26 minutes ago

Careful, those main characters are awfully young, and HP fans will tolerate it.

[–] RedSeries@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You don't wanna read Trans Wizard Harriet Porber And The Bad Boy Parasaurolophus: An Adult Romance Novel by Hugo award finalist Chuck Tingle?

[–] RedSeries@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 15 minutes ago

No, I want the franchise to wither and fucking die already. This is as gross to me as a suggestion for trans pornfic of "Elonia Musk".

[–] Bubs@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

I casually enjoy the movies and books. I read or watch them once every several years.

I will also never give her a single penny in any way possible.

I got the bluray set from a thrift store probably a decade ago. Books I just downloaded from a torrent. Watched the whole series with a few friends recently and we just found a free site to stream it. We all went into it well aware of how garbage the author is

Even not giving her money is still supporting her. Piracy has a less oppositional relationship with promoting media than you might think. The best thing is to always just move on to less evil stuff

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 hour ago

I remember seeing someone post recently that pirating Harry Potter is like stealing a confederate flag. It's good you didn't give them money, but you're still showing your allegiance by having it at all.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So you are not able to get over it.

[–] Bubs@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 hour ago

There's very little to get over compared to the picture in the post. I don't own any merch. I'm not part of the fandom. My life does not revolve around Harry Potter. I think about it once every few years basically. Very heavy emphasis on the "casually" enjoying it.

Before the recent watch with friends, it had probably been 5 to 8 years since I last watched or read any of the series.

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Enjoyed the first four books when I was in middle school so prior to us knowing the author was a complete sack of shit. Haven't interacted with the media since.

I wasn't a fan, but still really liked the books and movies growing up. It was a phenomenon. However, all of those memories are tainted irrevocably by what she's done

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Read the harry poster series a lot as a kid. I think I read the phoenix one +7 times. Won't stop me from punching j.k. bigot

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 36 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

Yeah... The closer you look at the Harry Potter books, the more you wonder how we didn't realise JK Rowling was a bigot sooner

[–] Doug@piefed.social 1 points 27 minutes ago

The older I get, the more I realize I think I can pick up on things about a writer’s worldview, even if the work isn’t trying to make a point of the worldview details I might pick up on.

I’m pretty sure Ari Aster is ableist, Christopher Nolan and S Craig Zahler are republicans, and Todd Field did something heinous, but diligently oversees his own Wikipedia article and Google Alerts to a degree that ensures it’s hard to find/I’ve been too lazy to really dig into it.

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Waitll you get to Star Wars Episode 1

[–] ivan@piefed.social 16 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Some artistic works age badly and I think it’s okay. It becomes a problem if artist themselves is aging badly and doubling down on things that could definitely be better about their works.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Exactly. If Rowling was willing to own up the problematic stuff in her books and grow from it, it wouldn't be a big issue. If she even disappeared into her castle and lived her life quietly releasing bad additions to the universe, it'd just blend into the background and only be occasionally brought up. Instead, JK became a Nazi who reinforces patriarchy, strengthens fascism, and made life hell for so many trans people.

[–] Jeffsthebestboy@piefed.ca 1 points 22 minutes ago

She also paints a nasty picture of older women. Intolerant, hateful and unwavering in both. Shes a bad view from every angle.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 4 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

All that is true but I think we need to acknowledge how JK started off a fairly moderate TERF and only became what she is today because of the interaction of her stubbornness with the reaction she got. If the goal is fewer bigots, there are lessons there for how to deal with TERFs.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Nah, she was already in too deep to rescue by the time she got pushback. She was too socially entrenched with bigots for anyone reasonable to reach her. Twitter drama is not responsible; her wealth, power, and how that impacted her social circle were.

People often think these descents into fascism are ideological, but it's been mostly interpersonal in every case I've witnessed. If someone is a rich white "feminist" with conservative tendencies, they can easily find friendship with people already deep in the brainrot. They then become reliant on that social group that leaving becomes costly, and fuck those minorities anyways. "They aren't my friends, so why should I care?"

Don't think of the detached internet as a space for recuperating fascists. Deprogramming cannot realistically happen there, not without more personal influence. It's parasocial to think otherwise.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 55 minutes ago (1 children)

This is an interesting perspective. In the case of JK it contradicts my understanding of the timeline but I'm only remembering some account I heard ages ago...

I think there is a synthesis though, because I think your social entrenchment could quite happily take place offline or online or "parasocially" if you prefer. Someone with offline friends who are reinforcing their beliefs is unlikely to be deprogrammed by the internet, but someone who doesn't have many of those offline friends can be influenced. (Or they could work in concert)

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)

That's true. In Rowlings case, she is documented as having hung out with notorious transphobes for a while before she went full mask off. That's why I say that she was beyond the internet's reach by the time she became vocal

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 8 minutes ago

Thanks, that's not something I'd heard, I'll see if I can find out more

[–] subverted_per@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The thing I just dont get is how someone who considers themselves a feminist has chosen a crusade where her greatest allies are people that would kick her back into the kitchen. Like all the groups that are as vocal as her about trans rights that take her side seem to be incels, manosphere idiots, and forced-birth christofacists.

I imagine that a lot of the Nazi views influenced her, so she became more ok with being their friend. She basically allowed them into her "acceptable allies" club and became more sympathetic to them from there. Needless to say, she's lost the plot and only really cares about transphobia anymore.

[–] chunk6235@piefed.social 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If all it took to turn a terf into a bigot was to give the author some moderate criticisms about the systemic failings of their world building to turn them into a Nazi, I think the only solution is to prevent terfs from becoming authors.

Either that or we need to accept that this was always going to be the outcome of some privileged rich white idiot who can't handle the slightest bit of pushback who'd rather cozy up to Nazis than admit that maybe her writing isn't perfect.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I really disagree that twitter arguments are the same as "moderate criticism". Even if every single person who criticises someone does so moderately and reasonably, which is already very unlikely, simply being moderately criticised by hundreds of thousands of people is not something the human mind is equipped to deal with in a healthy way.

[–] chunk6235@piefed.social 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree with the idea that she needed to be on Twitter and engage in twitter arguments. There was moderate criticisms of her across the net, the fact she WILLINGLY chose to engage in an opinion cesspool that let her drown in shit is her own goddamned fault.

Plenty of other people hired someone to deal with their social media accounts because they didn't want to subject themselves to socially-acceptable-4chan, she chose to chug sewage straight from the pipe despite having plenty of money and the connections to have it. Honestly, her not engaging with criticism with hostility would have done wonders for the whole situation.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I think you're focusing on what she could have done differently, and I'm focusing on what I believe will inevitably happen to some people, even if individuals can choose differently. So I'm not saying that "she needed to be on Twitter and engage". I'm not disagreeing that you can attribute blame to her for engaging in that way, besides blame for her initial opinions.

I'm saying that, from a practical perspective, you can think all of that, but still acknowledge that many people just are not good at disengaging from criticism, and that services like Twitter will inevitably attract people because they're designed to attract people. So it would be a good idea to try and move away from ways of acting which tend to cause that.

Basically I think we can break down JK's personality into three initial relevant features:

  • somewhat bigoted
  • the kind of person to want to use twitter
  • stubborn in the face of criticism

Of these, I think only the first is a true flaw and worthy of blame. The second would carry some blame nowadays but back then it wasn't owned by a Nazi. The second and third both describe a huge portion of humanity. I use Mastodon and other social media, so I don't feel like I can judge someone negatively for being the same, and I too can be stubborn in the face of criticism, as can many people I know, so same. But bigotry is clearly wrong.

All this means I really only feel like it's valid to judge JK as if she were the somewhat bigoted person she originally was, rather than today's turbo-Nazi version of her.

[–] chunk6235@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, other than the end:

All this means I really only feel like it's valid to judge JK as if she were the somewhat bigoted person she originally was, rather than today's turbo-Nazi version of her.

I disagree, we can judge her on the choices she made that brought her to this point. She chose to engage with negative criticism with hostility and surrounded herself with people who validated the beliefs and behaviors that culminated I where we are today.

She could have chosen to remove herself from those situations instead of jumping in with both feet, but there would have been a social/ego cost to it, so she continued letting herself be radicalized into the hateful thing she has become.

And I judge her as someone having almost walked a similar path. I was on the alt-right pipeline over a decade ago when they were getting their feet underneath themselves, and I had a combination of self-awareness/shame that helped me come to my senses.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 17 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Because every one who read it was a kid?

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, I was an aspie kid who was fascinated by much of the mold's writings but even I could notice some incredibly strange things:

  • House elves being treated as slaves and none of the wizards finding it odd. And Hermione, the typical person whom I felt most normal, was put away as an annoying brat and nerd. C'mon!
  • The suspiciously riches-obsessed and long-nosed kobolds
  • The overt discrimination of wizards w/o wizard parents (being called Mudbloods; or those who are 'too Muggle-obsessed'.)
  • JK only wanting people from the UK to play, even though it wouldn't always make sense. What about the Beauxbatons? The Durmstrang ones?
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 4 points 2 hours ago

Probably part of the problem is that kids are not very principled.

[–] Denvil@piefed.world 53 points 5 hours ago (6 children)

Harry Potter is fascinating to me because the books have messages against bigotry in them, and you look at the author and wonder how the gap between reality and the story could possibly exist

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 6 points 1 hour ago

Everyone's pointing out the "slaves like being slaves, actually" messaging of the books, which...fair. But there's so much more to it than that.

Extremely intelligent magical creatures like goblins and centaurs are treated pretty explicitly as second-class citizens. The Wizarding World is an apartheid state, and this is only barely given mention in the series.

There's fatphobia and some very essentialist language, describing characters like Dudley as piggy.

There's the much-discussed antisemitic tropes inherent in the way the greedy banker goblins are portrayed.

It has an insanely strong attribution bias. The exact same behaviour or physical attribute can be endearing or evil depending on how much Rowling herself likes the character. It's why the incredibly creepy incel behaviour of Snape is ultimately portrayed as a positive because he did it in the name of the one-sided obsession that he (and Rowling) called love. It's why Dudley's fatness makes him a pig but Molly's is warm and loving. Some degree of this is, in fairness, to be expected in a children's series. But it doesn't lessen as the books age up with their audience, and I think it's harder to excuse with the behaviours than it is with the physical descriptions (which are, to be fair, from Harry's PoV).

There's one of like two black characters being named "Shacklebolt", the one east Asian character being "Cho Chang", and the Irish one being the one with a penchant for blowing things up.

Despite one of the strongest themes many of the books most ardent readers got out of the series being about self-acceptance for who you are, we get a fair few examples where people are made fun of for who they are, or are forced to change to fit in by the end of the story. Filch is a stand-in for squibs as a whole in this regard, and is not viewed with much respect. Tonks had strong queer/trans parallels, until at the end she decides to lean fully into her cishet femininity in order to win over a man.

But perhaps most importantly, our protagonist, and through him the narrative as a whole, only ever views things through an extremely liberal lens. The problem is the big bad evil wizard, and the single lazy incompetent Minister than enables him. It's not a system of oppression and compliance, that starts from when children are sorted into "smart, brave, evil, or the leftovers" at age 11. It frames things as a world where leadership by the Good People like himself or Dumbledore must be a good thing, but if the Bad People are in charge, like the Malfoys or Voldemort, they are the problem. In the end, despite having been screwed over numerous times by the institutions of the magical world, Harry himself becomes a literal magic-world police officer.

And that's without even getting in to the extended universe. Stuff like the entire continent of Africa having just one school despite the enormous range of languages and cultures. Or one in the Americas having a Latin name despite ostensibly having been founded before European contact. Just generally signs that Rowling really doesn't care enough about cultural sensitivity to think through her worldbuilding.

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 hours ago

A video essay I watched once made an interesting point, which was that JK named Hermione Hermione because she didn't want any real young girls to her bullied because of the books. Basically, she thought Hermione was the worst, and made the boys only barely tolerate her because she was useful to them.

But then a bunch of Hermione-coded girls started absolutely loving the books because they saw themselves in it, and the movies cast a pretty girl instead of an "ugly" one, and suddenly JK's "oh shit, uh, yeah... hero..." 😛

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 39 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

TBF, the red flags are there.

Hermione gets moked for protesting. slavery is normalised but it's ok, because one elf becomes free, no one cares about the rest...

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 8 points 3 hours ago

And the rest of the house elves think he's weird for wanting freedom....

I was an adult when I started reading them because my younger sister liked them, back when the movies first came out. I definitely had a few moments of 'oh thats kinda wrong' but I thought it was just crappy writing in a kids book and moved on.

And now I know better (well, for years now but you know what I mean).

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 59 points 4 hours ago

I feel like, if you think about what the book does, the gap isn't as big as you'd think.

"Hermione, don't let being muggleborn get you down. You're a powerful witch, and therefore have value. ...Let's just ignore how we treat Filch and act like his bitter attitude is his own fault, alright?"

"It is choices that matter, not circumstances. Like how the sorting hat chose for these people to be Slytherins, so they're all evil and probably ugly."

"Look at how heroic Harry is for freeing a slave. Now, we're going to give him a slave and not think too hard about that. In fact, Hermione wanting to free other slaves is annoying and we should laugh at her because of it."

[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago

Maybe the editors forced it to change?

wonder how the gap between reality and the story could possibly exist

This is because everyone can become an absolute bigoted POS like that terf if they really wish for it. But many of us decide that we don't really give a crap about other people's genitalia, let alone about what they do with it so we just live our lives as if that was none of our business. Because, you know, being a decent human being is not that hard and letting people live their lives as they want doesn't make your life worse.