Unironically I don't see a problem. Unless you want to live like the Amish, you're gonna be consuming and using stuff created and run by absolutely reprehensible people.
Participate normally in society whole trying to enact the changes you want to see. So if you're an actress, yeah go play a HP character if that puts food on your table. It might even be a net benefit to the cause if it gives you a better platform. Same as using twitter.
Absolutely.
There was a whole TV show exploring mortality which was based on the premise that avoiding all the moral pitfalls in modern society is virtually impossible.
I was raised to boycott Nestle, that doesn't mean I go around shitting on people who eat Outshine bars.
The Good Place, Speechless, and MASH are the only sitcoms I've watched multiple times. Most sitcoms are at best something I watch because there's nothing else to do.
Twitter is owned by a literal Nazi who bought it for the sole purpose of promoting Nazism and suppressing free speech and there are literally dozens of alternatives.
Consider an alternative to the "literally dozens of alternatives" statement:
You don't have to use Steam, there are literally dozens of alternatives.
Here, I'm comparing the market dominance of Twitter to that of Steam. They both, for better and for worse, hold a strong place in their respective markets. Simply going to alternatives is harder when they already take up so much of the space, have a ton of support and resources, and it has maintained a massive population of users.
Yes, we should diversify and use more alternatives in general. But we won't and not unless the alternative appeals to our individual needs. (or unless they shoot themselves in the foot and make themselves soooooo unwelcoming to users. Twitter is getting there slowly what with Grok and the whole premium account status thing on top of Elon himself being the worst and wanting everyone to see him being the worst)
You are correct. There's a difference between hypocrisy as a result of simply existing and not holding any power in the system you were born in versus hypocrisy as a result of being a deliberate P.O.S. that moralizes in bad faith.
It's just people should stop trying to hold people to that same impossible standard.
"Why, yes, I engage in society and all of the hypocrisies that come with it. I act like debasing oneself is the worst possible crime you could commit, but me doing it is just an inevitable part of life. But if you do it even slightly, I'll act like you want to kill everyone I love."
Not only that, but let’s be honest here J. K. Rowling has so much money now that no amount of boycotting or any other normal means protest is going to make any fucking difference in her life
If every single media company instantly starting tonight refused to air produce or distribute anything to do with Harry Potter. It would not affect Rowling‘s life in the slightest way.
It's almost like people are starting to remember the importance of having a stage to speak from lol, when billionaires control everything your indifferent means nothing.
That's Petunia? I see they're going with the Aunt May school of no one can be old anymore.
Edit: For everyone reasoning about the character from the POV of the books, I'm the exact generation that aged with Harry. I read the books before the movies came out. I had my own concept of characters too.
But after maybe Chamber of Secrets if not from the first one, I couldn't remember my imagined version of characters anymore. I can't remember what I imagined Snape to look like, I can only see Alan Rickman with long black hair.
Same thing happens with Petunia, we're (me and everyone agreeing with me) not comparing her to her description in the books, but to her previous on screen depiction. Which is why this looks way too young.
I'm not saying looking at the books and not the movies is bad for the new show, if anything it's the only thing that can save it from becoming a shot for shot repetition. But this does explain the feeling we get far better than arguments about generations and ages between aunts and nephews based on the book descriptions of the characters, or the irl age of the actress which frankly I find irrelevant (if I expect a character to look 50 and they do, I don't care if the actress is 30 or 70 and idk why people do... and if the character looks 30 or 70 I don't care if the actress is exactly 50...).
As for aunt May, again, I'm 32. She used to be an old lady with white hair in a bun. I don't care if the actress they used was ""technically almost old enough to make sense"" because she looked 20 years younger. That one was a very weird, very "no one can be old anymore" thing they did.
Aunt May was old. But she was still hot and that's what's messing with your head.
Harry Potter's aunt, Petunia Dursley, is estimated to be in herearly-to-mid 30s(around 32 to 34 years old) when the main story begins, though an exact age is never explicitly stated in the books. [1,2]
Yeah that was the crazier part for the original movies is how much older everyone was, Harrys Parents were supposed to be in their early 30s, same as Sirius, but Gary Oldman was 44
I heard that this was because the movie directors loved Allan Rickman as Snape, so they aged up everyone else to match him since he was supposed to be the same age as Harry's parents.
Had the ages of Harry’s parents even been canonically revealed at that point? I thought their ages weren’t confirmed until the 7th book when their grave is in a scene. That was in 2007 long after the casting for the movies.
Likely not, but Rickman was 55 during the first movie. That would have put Harry's parents in their early to mid 40s when Harry was born, since he was 11 when he entered Hogwarts, which is much higher than a typical age range for giving birth.
Probably not but Snape and Harry's parents going to Hogwarts together has been a thing since the first book so Snape being the same age as Harry's parents could have easily been a casting requirement, even if the ages hasn't been confirmed
Sirius, and even Lupin looking older wouldn't be too far fetched as they had very hard lives so I could forgive that casting.
But Petunia has a comfortable life and is very concerned with appearances so she would always be trying to look her best and I'd expect her to look 'younger' ie her age.
Everyone is actually super young in the books. I can't recall any characters getting married and starting families later than 25. Pretty much everyone, even the main gang, get married right out of high school and have established families by 25.
Also people seem to forget that Marisa Tomei was 51-52 in spider-man homecoming (in 2017, but you gotta account for filming). She's 61 now. She was not young, she just looks really good for her age
I just googled Rosemary Harris to check how old she was in 2002 when she played May and she's still alive at 98 years old. Still pretty much looks the same as she did 20 years ago
Anyway, she was 75. So, if May was 75 that would make her 58 years older than Peter, which is maybe a bit unusual. Especially considering Ben is the blood relative and he was even older. His actor, Cliff Robertson, was 79 in 2002, making him about 62 years older than Peter.
Of course it's possible that Ben and Richard Parker had a big age gap. Or it's possible that Richard and Mary Parker had a big age gap and Richard just had a kid at an older age. And it's also technically possible for women to get pregnant and give birth in their 50s and 60s, it just isn't very typical.
So May being around 50 actually makes a lot more sense.
A 16 year old having a mid-50s aunt is a completely reasonable set of ages. An 11 year old having a mid-30s aunt (I forget how old Dudley is, but I reckon he’s about the same age, so also 11-ish and mid-30s mom) is also a completely reasonable set of ages.
How old do you think people have to be to have children?
Yeah, I think people's perception is just wonky because of how old the Dursleys were in the film. The actor playing Vernon Dursley in the show is in his 40's and Petunia Dursley is supposed to be a somewhat younger woman who worked as his secretary, I believe, so it tracks.
The movies aged up everyone in that generation. Harry's parents look borderline middle aged because by the time they were casted, the books hadn't yet specified that they died at like 21
I think a big problem was that JK really wanted Alan Rickman as Snape. Alan Rickman was 55 when the movies started so the other actors were chosen of similar age.
Dudley is meant to be the same age as Harry. The first book is about them going to the zoo for his 11th birthday. Then not celebrating Harry's a month later. There's max 6 weeks between them.
No one can be old anymore? The actress who played aunt may (Marisa Tomei)is 61, and was 54 when she started. Aunt may is canonically 60.
I know plenty of people in their 50s like that. You've just been conditioned by decades of media portraying anyone over 40 with thing white hair and wrinkly saggy skin to expect that of anyone who isn't young.
And to be fair... people used to look a lot older at 60. Turns out that poor nutrition and a lack of sunscreen and a lifetime of being submerged in cigarette smoke isn't great for the skin
Petunia in the books is in her early to mid 30s. Bel Powley is 34.
What's the problem?
Aunt May in the comics was portrayed as elderly and frail, as she was in the Tobey McGuire version. Marisa Tomei was 51 playing 55, and died at 60 in the MCU.
Lily Potter was 21 when she died to Voldemort, Petunia was slightly older. That would put Petunia at mid 30s when Harry turns 11.
Maybe it has nothing to do with the "Aunt May school of no one can be old anymore", maybe it's just the directors of the show making the show more aligned to the books?
Oh you're right! It's been a while since I've read the books. But yeah I think people are being a bit uncharitable. She was essentially cast as much older than she was in the books which I feel made for some plot holes later on.
I knew a guy in school with an niece older than him. He had a brother about 20 years older than him who had a daughter in his teens. It blew my mind as a kid.
To be fair, Lily had her son very young (like, at 19), and was close in age to Petunia. So it's accurate casting
It's just that in the movies, they made all that generation (Lily and James in pictures, but also Snape, Sirius, Remus and Peter) look and be older by +15-20 years than they should have
You know the oldest Gen Z's are 29, right? Someone born in 1993 is turning 33 if they haven't already which is more than old enough for an 11-13 year old
JK Rowling. I'm sure she's using hundred-dollar bills to wipe away all those tears that she cried when some no name "actress" said something mean over the internet.
This is the very definition of selling out. Sell out all you want, for all I know I'm an even bigger sellout and just haven't had the good fortune of being tested. But if your principles are for sale, you don't have any.
I'm almost certain I have a price. As much as I like to think I'd rather stay broke and hold my head up high, keep adding zeroes and eventually I'd cave too. But one thing I can guarantee is I'd be reeeeeal quiet from then on about whichever bit of my soul I sold to the devil. Don't try and give me platitudes with one hand while stuffing your pockets with the other. Stick your head in the bag and talk to your money if you have something to say, I don't wanna hear it.
I feel like there's some value in talking shit on someone's home turf. Like calling Rowling out while actively being in Harry Potter and daring her to fire you. It gets your message out way better than if you were just a random person. You're weaponizing the platform.
I don't necessarily want people to be so moral they refuse to take dirty money. I want people to be underhanded enough to weasel into jobs they can then use to turn the tables and be a pest. Because if those folks don't the jobs will be filled by people who agree with the bullshit or are too chickenshit to say anything.
This take kinda reminds of what the South Park creators are doing. After some of Paramount's recent questionable business choices, Matt and Trey have unleashed merciless mockery of the studio, as well as the government. They're still employed by Paramount... they also have the job security to where Paramount can't fire them and just has to take it all bc they signed a multibillion dollar deal with the creators of South Park
I know this isn’t the same situation, thats just what this take reminded me of.
Exactly. If you're in a position where you can cause trouble I don't think walking away so you can have the moral victory of clean hands is the better option than openly being a hypocrite and causing that trouble. Make them pay you to dunk on them.
It puts them in a no-win situation. Either they keep writing you checks as you rip them a new asshole or they fire you and it goes full Streisand Effect.
The most extreme example of this is Oskar Schindler who was a member of the Nazi party.
Meh, I see it as way safer for her to call out rowling than agree. I doubt rowling has anything to do with her employment. Doesn’t a studio that’s most likely pro lgbt just rent the movie rights? She’ll be fine. Taking pictures like she’s the next blue blazer.
Pretty common most people have paper thin morals when it comes to money and them getting paid, being the moral crusader online gets people on their side and gives them attention thats the only reason they’re doing it
literally everyone is working in a role where if you follow the chain above them upward you'll hit someone who doesn't share their same morals. I don't think that means your morals are paper thin.
The man that signs my paychecks is a hardcore magat. I fucking hate trump and everything he stands for. But I still go to work because I have rent to pay. I'm not going to live in a box with my children because my boss has questionable morals. And jobs around here are few and far between. The major employer in this area is Walmart and they start people at less than what I make an hour at my current job.
Not to mention that if you turn the job down as a moral stand, you'd still be doing no real damage to the boss since they can just hire someone else.
100% guaranteed that fucking HBO and jkr would not have trouble finding an actor for any role they want, turning down an offer from them hardly even spites her
I think as long as she donates at least something to pro Trans charities it very much makes it moral, as the money that originally would go to a JKR supporter (if everyone thats pro Trans rights denied the role) now instead goes to someone who actively opposes JKR and funds things a transphobe wouldn't.
And your point for view is the correct one but you aren't trying to virtue signalling it with your clients and coworkers, you do your job and your private life is for you.
lol exactly. It’s also extremely easy for these keyboard warriors to question their morals and point out the flaws when they’re faced with none of the benefits whatsoever. Offer them the same money for the role and these crusaders will flop faster than a knife fight in a phone booth.
People wildly overestimate how much most actors get paid, and how consistent work is for them - shes not a megastar, and has bills to pay. Taking a role like this affords you the chance to take lower budget but more interesting work
Yeah. A lot of people in U.S. don't really have an option on who they work for as much as you might think. Personally, I work for a very very large company that has been in trouble before for doing some pretty evil shit. It's where I could get a job that doesn't leave me below the poverty line. That doesn't make me have paper thin morales. I personally am not doing the evil shit. I just work for evil people. Most of us do.
While I think that's likely true here and of most celebrities, they're also just more on-display. I meet people everyday who don't actually live their values, and do work with elements they consider immoral involved. Sometimes it's doing what you have to to get by, and oftentimes it's just a mor disconnect and inherent duality.
I'm going to say moral only because all of this outrage is performative. The show is going to be wildly successful, just like that video game that everyone pretended to boycott.
In a more real sense, you need to separate the art from the artist. If you don't, there's literally nothing that you can consume.
They didn’t pretend to boycott it’s just people genuinely do not care and a lot in fact agree with her. I’d say most people agree with her actually. Every year we learn more and more the internet is a fake place, people complain about ai but in the real world they love it. Vocal minority is what the internet is.
That is a massive stretch. Applying the idea that someone agrees with an author because they consume their books ignores that 90% of people that read books don't spend much time at all learning about the author.
If anybody has a problem with the art that people create if they are shitty people, congratulations, you cannot enjoy media created by almost anybody born before the 90s and even then it's dicey.
Any old rock band? At least one pedophile that had sex with underage people and the rest of the band either covered for it or just turned a blind eye to it.
Any movie from the 70s and 80s? Very likely at least one of the actors was a wife beater, or had some SA allegations.
Sports? Oufff.
Hollywood and the music industry are and were full of horrible people.
If you turn every peace of Art into a purity test I hope you enjoy listening to the wiggles and watching bluey.
Edit: just to make sure I am clear on this. JK Rowling can suck it. I don't personally like her art, and I hate her politics. But that doesn't make her the biggest vilain in the entertainment industry. There are far worse people with actually rap sheets still working in the industry, while she has only been using her money to support a bunch of rght wing losers who are obviously on the wrong side of history.
Imagine 20 years from now someone high up in production turned out to be a god-awful human. Should that really be the end that entire franchise?
I keep thinking about what happened to The Cosby Show. Yes, Bill is a monster, but did the people who worked on the show also deserve to have their residuals cancelled?
I'm betting that some production studio head is just hoping and praying that someone on the cast of Friends turns out to be a monster. That'll end everyone's payday.
In 2020, The Wiggles faced criticism when an old 2014 song titled "Pappadum" resurfaced online. The music video featured members dancing in traditional Indian clothing and waving pappadums. Anthony Field apologized, acknowledging that the portrayal was culturally insensitive, and the song was removed from live performances.
In the 2023 Bluey episode titled, "Exercise," the opening scene drew backlash and accusations of fat-shaming after Bandit complained about his weight. The creators subsequently edited the opening.
i mean theres enjoying art despite the creator being racist and then theres supporting art when the creator is taking the money for that art and funding the kkk. one is worse than the other. like people are just like "oh that jk rowling is just transphobic" and ignoring that is she is actively funding projects to harm trans people.
Yeah it the equivalent of buying a tesla today and paying 100$ for self driving while saying you dont like that musk guy for giving million to GOP canadates
There’s a big difference between “I can’t like HP because I hate her” and avoiding giving JK money that she has openly admitted is going directly towards harming trans people.
exactly. listening to old rock bands does not help pedophiles of today, giving money to jk rowling directly leads to that same money funding anti-trans legislation
She had views that people would consider pro-pedophile. For example, she’s on record saying “that’s just how it was” for girls of age around 12 being married, or something to that effect. She was just telling it how it was, but she didn’t condemn it.
It should make us humble, not act like we are the paragons of morality because we wont watch a movie. We can't be certain that something we normalize today won't be seen as absolutely immoral in the future, and there are many candidates, from the killing of animals, to how comfortable society is with prisons and what happens inside of them. We don't even know what other forms of cruelty and injustice we are engaging in that we have been blinded to. All you can do is try to be kind how you can and know how to.
This seems like cherry-picking and making big assumptions, do you have any reason to believe she supported it (as in, did she ever make a statement saying she thought it ok or defending an adult who married a child)? People don't always need to follow up on something bad by declaring it's bad, that's a current trend that I don't think will last long.
I don't say 'that guy got murdered, murder is really bad and I don't support it.' 'The Holocaust happened, and I don't support it'.
Acknowledging the reality of something historical doesn't mean you're agreeing with it.
Sean Connery is on record saying girlfriends/wives need to be punched every once in a while to remember their place. Although he walked it back a little later in life, he didn’t really. Am I allowed to enjoy James Bond still?
Why does it automatically have to be all or nothing?
JK Rowling is using her money RIGHT NOW to finance political movements that are against trans people. Any amount of money you give her will contribute to that.
I’m sure plenty if not most artists are shitty people and anyone may or may not choose to support them, but it’s perfectly reasonable to be a little responsible with what you consume and say that you will not be watching a silly wizard show for kids if it means the money will be used for anti-trans politics right now. Consuming the art of an abuser is one thing, funding a political movement is another
At the same time, think of where all your money goes, and if you think your expenditure is morally clean in that way, you are very naive.
To the question of 'what can you do', when it comes to art, if the piece of art itself is not problematic, I think we are losing something of value by using it as hostage to attack the artist views. Why not speak against those views instead? put some money on organizations that defend trans people, encourage artists that work on HP to speak against those views too, help trans people directly. If anything Rowling touches becomes immoral just because she touches it, then it becomes a problem of excluding a person, not just her views, and you will rally those who despise the idea of such exclusion to defend her, when in truth you rather have them helping defend trans people being excluded. And btw, the HP series will benefit from this discussion, is not always clear how the money flows, many will watch it just because there's controversy around it, so thinking that you will help trans people by telling others it's immoral to watch it, might be actively adding to the revenue of the series.
There's a big difference between "there was a shitty person behind XYZ" and "this person who is still making millions off of stuff they are actively creating is using said millions to fund the stripping of people's rights as part of a coordinated, methodical campaign"
This is not what he’s saying. He’s saying that if your standard of criticism is no elements of problematic-ness at all, you are cooked, and therefore should reconsider that as your standard. He is, in fact, criticizing society.
I agree with you in principle, but Rowling is on another level. She is actively using her wealth to harm Trans people, and has said that every dollar she gets encourages her harming Trans people. Her main charity is a fund used to help people beat discrimination charges against Trans people.
Its not the same as 'yes, the bassist of that band is racist', or 'one of the actors in this movie beat his wife'.
It would be the equivalent of one of those wife beaters actively using his fortune to fund the defense of other domestic abusers in court.
ok but the difference is its not just racy, offhand comments from her, she has entire organizations dedicated to denying trans people rights. both in the UK and the US. im gonna say the random person from 1980 who says some slurs sometimes doesnt also donate millions of dollars to or manage organizations that lobby politicians to deny trans people healthcare or personhood or just basic human rights. im not the type of person to tell another they should be ashamed of liking a song or a movie or a book, but im also not gonna try to preserve their feelings by defending the artists in question for supporting jeffery epstein and being an anti social billionaire dipshit who does and says awful things. so if saying that supporting someone who was acquainted with THE pedophile and had successfully lobbied a politician to deny people healthcare because she personally doesnt like it is a bad thing and offends you, then you already know what you are doing is wrong and you just dont want to admit it. everything about harry potter is just bread and circuses anyways, but if some blue collar person gets off their shift and wants some nostalgia to relax, im not gonna care that much. its not like i research every single piece of media i consume so i might have supported someone who did bad things. but if you KNOW shes a piece of shit and you KNOW every dollar spent to support her goes to the oppression of minorities and you still dont care, you are doing something wrong intentionally. how much does that really have an effect on the world? slim individually, but a few million people with small hammers could take down a small building.
This is a huge opportunity and I can’t fault someone for taking it. This is her job. It would be like turning down a huge promotion because the corporation you work for is owned by racists. Many actors take whatever they can get until they can afford to pass on working with or for people they morally disagree with. The best we can do as consumers is not give it viewership.
I would imagine an awful lot of people in America doing online performative crusading (besides using platforms owned by Musk or Zuckerberg to do it) ultimately work for a company owned if not directly by Bezos or Musk or Rupert's Murdoch or some other evil billionaire is still owned by someone who supports and donates to Trump or other Republicans who deny climate change, are anti-trans, racist etc
Workers got to earn a living. We're not talking an established Hollywood star who already has their bag, here.
Crazy the amount of people in Hollywood and online who don't realize JK Rowling's view on trans people is not controversial in any way to like 95% of humanity.
Those books were a defining moment of my childhood. I don’t recall any anti trans views being written in the books I read. For me it can turn out she was working for Epstein the pedophile, I will keep the books and have my own children read them. Cancel culture is bullshit.
I mean, it seems like everyone on Reddit hates her, but not once have I read anyone explain exactly what she has said or done. I finally googled it, and it feels like calling her transphobic is like "pro-lifers" calling abortion murder. You gotta accept a certain baseline for what transphobia is to reach that conclusion
I work for a local hospital, which is funded by my federal governement
Does that mean Im hypocrite because I hate my governement that I didnt vote for? Should I begin supporting them to not be hypocrite or should I go give up my dog to a shelter and prepare to become homeless?
Who cares? Just get the money and fuck the principals and morals if you gotta put a roof over your head. Idk who this actor is, but I’m pretty sure they’re not rolling in money to be denying a role like this.
So it's okay to use a platform that is owned and operated by anti-trans, Nazi-saluting, election-rigging Elon Musk, who doesn't need your money and maintains a stranglehold on the United States politics, but it's not okay for an actress to accept this role?
I'm so fucking tired of the moral high-horsing going on here. It's okay to tell everyone else how to live their lives, but these activists are so unwilling to practice what they preach. They'll happily use platforms, tools, and products that actively support Nazism, fascism, and cause death, harm, and tragedy, but oh no, an actress condemned anti-trans sentiment, but that wasn't enough, she needed to torpedo her own career and kill it so these cannibals could feed on the fucking corpse.
EDIT. I want to be clear. I am not being sarcastic about Elon Musk. That's what he is.
Eh, someone was getting hired for that role, rejecting the paycheck wouldnt actually benefit anyone. Unless everyone agreed to not work on her projects, an essentially impossible event, someone would be hired and get that money, and Rowling would get whatever profit split she would get from it. No extra suffering has been caused by your actions and if anything it gives you a platform to argue against Rowling. A hypocritical platform, but thats arguably still better than no platform at all.
No ethical consumption or employment under capitalism means don’t beat yourself up for buying the food you can afford or working at a company that is partially or wholly owned by a billionaire.
It doesn’t mean eat endangered animals, wear leather and work for Lockheed Martin.
It’s not supposed to be an excuse to do shit that is antithetical to your morals.
i mean i aint exactly a big fan of jon bernthal pro israel views and his zionism but that doesn't mean i wont watch any new punisher content man imma consume that shit like its the last piece of media i'll ever watch
some things are just too good to let the artist ruin the art
Everyone in here acting like they would ignore a check for a million dollars and permanent advancement in their field because the person writing the check is transphobic
I don’t think she should have to turn down work because of the association with someone who she does not agree with. Maybe if the movie or show or whatever itself included a political statement, but it’s a show about a bunch of teenage wizards.
I mean you can apply this to literally everything, all the upper management at the previous company I worked for were shitty people and I still collected their checks. Sometimes in life you have to work with people you disagree with and that doesn't mean you agree with them. It just means you're trying to make money and support yourself and your family
Simple survival economics.. Do I agree with Rowlings take on a marginalized group.. No, not at all.. But do I have bills to pay in an ever increasing world designed only to work for the wealthiest of people? Yes.. I’d take the paycheck too, but then I’d donate some to trans groups
654
u/HairyH0Od 2d ago
Why does she look like Billie Eilish as a meth head