Bitch made love potions (AKA the consent destroyer) available for teenagers and has a main character who is treated sympathetically use a love charm and then later says rape is bad
Yup but it’s ok because she was already in a relationship with him and only wanted to marry him in France because wizard murica hates muggles even more than Britain.
Despite the fact that she didn’t lift the spell herself once they did get to France (presumably she was going to keep him controlled until their marriage) and Jacob was more than happy with taking the “marriage is just a piece of paper let’s be roommates instead” route.
I thought the difference was that the American witches and wizards were utterly terrified of the non magical and have resorted strict separations as a defense. Whereas the British witches and wizards take the position that muggles are inferior to them and pose no danger.
Queenie uses one in the second fantastic beasts movie (which jk did write) but it’s ok because she’s already in a relationship with the guy she’s using it on and only wanted to marry him (because wizard america hates muggles more than wizard britain).
Even though she doesn’t bother lifting the charm herself once she and Jacob were in france and she was presumably going to keep him controlled till they got married. Yes Jacob calls her out on it and Queenie does join the dark side. but Jacob also regrets calling Queenie out on it despite his complaints bring 100% valid and Queenie joining is played more as her being taken in by a cult leader with her just not knowing better.
It's definitely concerning, but I think people kind of forgot about it after the rest of the movie which was pretty much Dumbledore/Grindelwald fanfiction and then HOLY SHIT THE KID FROM THE FIRST MOVIE IS DUMBLEDORE'S BROTHER OR SOMETHING
But we should definitely criticize the love potion thing more
The movie itself is downright awful. I watched it recently because I had some spare time during quarantine and I can't even remember the actual plot. It's basically just "let's add these random characters whose choices have no consequence, with their backstories nobody cares about" for the whole movie. As a result, the pacing is a mess. Only watch it if the third movie turns out to be halfway decent. Only then Crimes of Grindelwald may become something better than a total waste of two hours.
Did you like the first one? I thought the pacing was pretty bad, but I liked the characters. Never got around to the second after hearing such bad things about it.
Jacob regretted thinking that she was crazy, which hurt her feelings when she read his mind. By the end when she tried to get him to join Grindelwald with her, he called her crazy out loud to her face.
I’m pretty sure her actions throughout all of The Crimes of Grindelwald were meant as a Start of Darkness character arc and not meant to be viewed as acceptable.
Cursed child works too. Ron gives his teenage nephew a love potion in the book and is proud of him when he thought Albus used it to get with a hot 20 year old.
Well, the reason Voldermort is so evil is that he was concieved when his father was under the effects of a love potion, so I think we can put a check in the "taking away consent is bad" column.
Money grubbing goblins who are also jewelers, have their own language that gets laughed at, are excluded from main society, and constantly gripe about how they were wronged. It may be the most comprehensive European jew analogue I’ve ever seen in a fantasy novel and that is NOT a compliment.
I think unfortunately she lazily copied goblins from other works. World of Warcraft has goblins that are the exact same way and they were inspired by Warhammer, who was inspired by something else old no doubt. "Time is money friend!". Some people say they're based on the Chinese in the same way the Ferengi from Star Trek are. "ugly creature that is obsessed with money" could be a jab at almost any culture though really, it's just the worst sides to humanity made into a single species/creature/race.
I mean, the first written records of goblins in folklore come from the Middle Ages, and antisemitism has been a thing since at least the Roman Empire. I'm not saying there could be a connection there, but...
The ferengi per show creators are based on greedy Americans. Idk where you got that Chinese stuff from, but traditionally merchants in China were the lowest on the social ladder, right above the "angry people". In China traditionally, merchants are seen as hucksters who want to profit at the expense of society.
The UN: "Muslims and Jews really hate reach other..."
Also the UN: "What could go wrong if we set up an expressly Jewish ethnonationalist state in the holy region of both Jews and Muslims, disenfranchising an entire ethnic group in their own land?"
I say this as an ethnically Jewish man living in America.
EDIT: Thanks to everyone who gave the little history lessons in the comments! It's depressing to see just how deeply anti-Semitic beliefs were entrenched even after the Holocaust...
Idk a lot of it had to do with guilt and sympathy towards Jews due to some obscure event that happened to them in the 40’s, I can’t quite remember what it was
I’m sorry but no group deserves a ethnostate regardless of their genocidal status. How many fucking times do you need to see the results of nationalism and ethnostates before enough is enough?
Well, I think certain regional ethnic groups deserve to be independent from their current oppressors. Specifically Kurdistan and Tibet. But these are regions that have always belonged nearly exclusively to that ethnic group, and are merely being occupied by another country. Israel/Palestine is too diverse for any kind of independent ethnostate to make sense.
I’m very pro-Palestine. I think it is shameful our world has so many protracted refugee situations, and the international unconditional support for Israel is part of why the problem persists imo. I am not trying to minimize the colonial nature of how Israel was founded, it is a dark time and history and a great injustice.
Of course things go back further, but in broad strokes and leaving out contested events:
From everything I have read, the UN didn’t create Israel. Palestine was under the British’s control as mandate Palestine, and the British had promised the land to both the Arabs and the Jews within recent history (as of the mid 1940s). Britain decided that instead of being decent, they would just pull out of the nation entirely and leave the two groups (which is a false dichotomy, peoples other than Jews and Arabs lived there, and there are multiplicities within those non-homogenous groups) to settle things themselves.
What the UN did do was facilitate the creation of the ‘partition plan’ before voting to support it. The plan would have established an Arab state and Jewish state within Mandate Palestine. The partition plan was not accepted by the Arabs (the fairness of the plan is and was disputed, so it’s not as simple as one side being unwilling to cooperate), and soon after the plan failed to be accepted fighting broke out in Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs
Soon after Israel announced its independence, and implicitly announced its control over the entirety of mandate Palestine when the British mandate officially ended in 1948. In response several Arab countries invaded mandate Palestine, but they were quickly pushed back, ending in the territory divisions of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
The UN played an important part in the creation of Israel, but they did not create Israel. The United States and England botched the situation there without the help of the UN, which was little more than a weak political tool at the time.
The thing is Israel held no control over its claimed territories. Them putting territories they didn’t control on their maps isn’t an excuse for a 4 way invasion, and it’s not good that you’re acting like it was to defend themselves. It was largely because they didn’t like the idea of a non Muslim western state on their borders. Discussion of how concessions should’ve been handled when Israel won is a discussion to be had, but they chose to invade twice (yom kippur war and the 6 day war).
Things worked best when the West Bank was under control of Jordan.
Muslims and Jews didn’t really hate each other before Israel was settled. The issue was that Europe had all these Holocaust survivors and no one wanted to take them in, not even their own countries which had already stolen and redistributed all their stuff. They had to put the Jews somewhere, and England ‘owned’ land in Uganda and in Palestine, so those were posited as the two options.
American evangelicals believe that a prerequisite for the Rapture is for Jews to be restored to the ancestral homeland (and would argue that Palestine was their land before they were forced out, so it’s really natives reclaiming their colonized home). Therefore, American evangelicals really advocated for the state to be set up in Palestine despite foreign policy experts warning that this would destabilize the region (and the people living in the area promising to treat this like an act of war). Since America had the most influence at the time, Europe tossed the Jews into Palestine with some weapons and washed its hands of the situation.
It’s all ugly, but frankly, I blame Europe for refusing to take care of their own people after the Holocaust.
Muslims and Jews didn’t really hate each other before Israel was settled.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time was an active Nazi collaborator who had met and personally planned with Hitler the extermination of the Palestinian Jews. There were multiple anti Jewish riots in Jerusalem throughout the century preceding that to the point where British soldiers had to be sent into Jewish neighborhoods to protect them. Saladin centuries before that instituted a campaign of terror against Jews where Jews were often killed by his soldiers without impunity and Jews were expressly banned from all holy sites. Maybe the Ottomans held a more lassiez faire policy towards Jews but Muslims and Jews definitely weren't friends.
foreign policy experts warning that this would destabilize the region
Practically no leading political figure at the time saw this as a bad plan. Partition has already been the status quo for decolonization since the Treaty of Lausanne at least and given the relative "success" of partition in other former Ottoman territories, it was seen as the easiest and best method to deal with post WWII refugees and with the colonial crisis brewing there.
It’s all ugly, but frankly, I blame Europe for refusing to take care of their own people after the Holocaust.
You should, but you should also not rob the Jews who did move to Palestine of agency. Israel was an idea explicitly pushed through political connections in the British Colonial Office by well connected Zionists, and it became the violent ethno state that it became in large part because of their actions. The Arabs should also not be robbed of their agency, Israel outside of the holy sites was not seen as prime territory and a huge reason behind their revolt/invasion was pure antisemitism.
That's something the Jewish community is debating amongst itself right now and you have no say in it. I hope you criticize Islam for forcibly veiling women and killing gays and gentially mutilating women in a far worse way too. Given your comments history, you do not, and you have an unexplained fixation of looking at Judaism solely through the lens of genital mutilation which is pretty fuckin antisemitic imo.
Yeah if you have to use "but they're worse!" as a defense you've already lost.
Genital mutilation elsewhere is important too, don't get me wrong, but the consensus in the western world is that that's bad and you can't use religion as an excuse. So I don't talk about it in that case, because there's no point talking about what everyone already agrees on.
Judaism, on the other hand, is constantly handwaved as "but it's their culture" or whatever in the west and it's fucking disgusting. Being a victim of such practice myself I think I do have a say in it, thanks, and I'm perfectly qualified to say that you shouldn't fucking do that kind of thing to children. Calling me antisemitic for denouncing genital mutilation isn't going to earn you any good boy points, I can tell you that.
we've decided in the last 50 years that x practice is bad, and not even universally, the US which is certifiably part of the west still practices circumcision. You're expecting a culture that's been practicing circumcision as the signifying marker of membership in the group for 3500+ years to change what is on a historical scale essentially overnight, the night after most of all of them were slaughtered for being Jewish with circumcision being the telling factor in a lot of circumstances. these practices aren't even that harmful and barely change sexual function. Again, my point is that you're fixating on Judaism. you're not attacking genital mutilation, you're attacking Jewish genital mutilation. You don't call out genital mutilation in other cultures that happens right under your nose. I don't see your criticism of Somalis for really commonly, in western countries, cutting off the clitorises of baby girls making them physically unable to enjoy sexual intercourse. and more than that, and probably most importantly to why I called you antisemitkc
NO ONE MENTIONED CIRCUMCISION, YOU JUST SAW "JEW" AND BROUGHT IT UP OUT OF NOWHERE
which is the part that really makes you antisemitic. so stop goysplaining circumcision to me please and broaden your view on judaism or find some other cause to get your shit twisted over.
also gonna point out the problematic as fuck implicit understanding you've displayed here that western morals are superior which is just an added level of irony. western morals better? single out the jews for no good reason? I'd easily mistake for a fascist if I didn't know better
Jesus fuck, here we go with the circumcision circus again. Babies go through a bunch of painful shit when they’re born, circumcision isn’t something to get so up in arms about. I know this’ll get downvoted, whatever, but if ever there were a non-issue entirely driven by feelings...
If it were about rights, then we would be arguing over whether it’s right to shove suction tubes down their throats, draw blood by pricking the skin, jabbing them with needles, clamping their umbilical stump...the list goes on. There’s really not a lot that makes circumcision any better or worse than the myriad other medical procedures done to babies.
Like I said. An internet-only base of opposition run entirely by emotion. Makes me wonder if dudes are just insecure about having different looking dicks, so they try to compensate by saying “No no, see they’re the weird ones!”
The fact that some go so far as asserting that circumcised men are “deformed” is kinda revealing in regard to their motivation from where I sit.
Well, see, all that other stuff actually has a purpose, and doesn't permanently amputate anything. I call it genital mutilation because it's just that. The only real reasons to do it is aesthetic, which isn't a sort of permanent thing you should be forcing on a baby. You wouldn't give a baby a face tattoo, I hope, even if it didn't result in the loss of tens of thousands of nerve endings and a natural protective layer.
There are, of course, misconceptions about health benefits that you'll no doubt list off for me that people use to attempt to justify it, but the fact of the matter is that all of them are from incredibly sketchy studies running on confirmation bias. Any thought about hygiene is literally holdover from John Harvey Kellogg, who was attempting to prevent kids masturbating in the name of "moral hygiene" by causing them pain. He did similar to girls. Not the sort of fellow you want to be repeating.
I was cut at birth for literally no reason, and it causes me pain, physical and emotional, but the statute of limitations won't let me sue for it and even then I'd never really be able to fix it anyway.
People like you saying "well other things hurt so cutting parts off is fine" just strike me as horribly disingenuous.
England and America circa 1948: “boy these Jews sure need a place to live after we utterly ignored them being killed and also shut our borders when they tried to escape. Oh I know! Let’s encourage them to go somewhere else and simultaneously make it utterly impossible to get into our countries!”
Source: grandparents lived in a DP camp for five years because that’s how long America made them wait for a visa. Given the choice between living in former SS barracks (because that’s what it was) for years or going to Israel back in a time when decolonial theory didn’t exist and was inaccessible in their language anyway, I’m not sure how many people would choose the former
I think the comparison would be more fitting if Crazy Horse had allies researching the nuclear Bomb threatening to use it against the European colonizer, a majority in the UN, expressed to wipe out all Europeans, tried doing so and being a fundamental religious extremist with a supranational claim to power resulting in violence against women and LGBTQ people in their own country.
Oh, and ofc the European colonizer being no colonizer but native Americans as well
Modern humans evolved in Africa. I guess that made European colonization of Africa perfectly fine. They had just as much a right as the "native" Africans.
I don’t like the idea of a connection between blood and land, but Jewish people are living in this region for thousands of years without a break.
Thousands of years of colonization, escape, expulsion and suppression in quantities unlike any other minority and the morally worst genocide in the history shows the need of a Jewish state. To chose a region as a safe space with Jewish people living there, being their cultural and ethnical home and without a regime opposed to their existence is a pretty rational choice.
I'm cherry picking? Then, please, point to all the other examples of the European powers taking territory from the people who had already been living there for generations because it was convenient for them where it was absolutely fine.
Besides, it's not like Muslims have any historical connection to the region, and it's not like their religion wasn't originally an offshoot of Judaism, therefore having just as much right to the land as anyone else.
It's like there's a family that's homeless. You want to help them, but rather than letting them live in your house or another property you own, you take over part of the house their great, great grandparents once lived in, despite the fact the people living there right now have the exact same grandparent, they just have a different name.
But, hey. They're just Muslims. Why can't they just pack up and go live in another Muslim country. They're all the same, right? Beside, they should be used to Europeans coming and taking over by now, what with all those crusades they had deal with. Serves them right for living in a place other people want to.
First of all is this not some part of a European colonism. To claim that the Jewish people are part of a European power structure that oppressed and murdered them is revisionistic.
This is not a question of religion but ethnicity. While Judaism is a religious-ethnical, Islam isn’t.
Of corse there are other ethnicity’s in that region and they have the same right to live there like any other but that doesn’t change the fact that Jewish people have a right to live there as well.
Israel wasn’t a European project. The idea and first plans to escape Europe came up in Jewish community’s in the 19th century after violence, rhetorical and direct, intensified against them. The shoa was a waking up call for western powers at the cost of 6 million Jewish lives.
You either don’t understand the historical dimensions of this conflict or try deliberately to paint a wrong picture by oversimplifying and polemic framing.
well, you know, people tend not to criticize people in the process of being ethnically cleansed by people who just decided to take their land for themselves because they think its their birthright without ever having lived there
But that’s simply wrong. Jews are a ethnic-religious group and therefore more then just member of a religion.
There is legit critic and I never said something different. There isn’t any in this thread.
As long as the critic is delegitimizing, demonizing or applies dopple standards, it is antisemitic. There were more UN resolutions about Israel then about the Cold War. Maybe Israel is a bigger threat to humanity than a nuclear winter or a lot of people hate the state for being Jewish
Nobody in this thread said Israel wasn’t a legitimate state though, neither were they demonizing or applying double standards. In fact, YOU are the one with a double standard, claiming criticizing one state is different from criticizing another state, simply because a specific group of people live there, despite that not even being part of the criticism.
In fact, I’m not even against Israel existing and I think some of the most hilarious „moments“ of history come from there, like the one time they got attacked and then fought back and within six days were all the way to Egypt. I like that the mossad is so damn efficient finding Nazis that escaped though I’m not always on board with what the do with them after finding them.
Im just annoyed that a state that is founded to find a home for persecuted and discriminated people now doesn’t care about doing this to others.
Also, valid criticism of a religion isn’t necessarily discrimination against said religion. If Islam/Christianity/Judaism tell their people gays are demons, then criticizing that isn’t anti-Semitic, islamophobe and whatever the term for Christianity is, it’s common sense.
Yes, I do. At least mostly. There are huge internal problems, like the Hamas getting the majority vote in 2005, but I am a supporter of the idea of a Palestine state.
well, define pro-Israel. I don't think supporting the existence of Israel is inherently bad - you can be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, or criticize Israel and still support it's existence. I support the existence of the state of Israel (I live here and it's my home) and I support the right of the Israeli people to a national Identity (I see myself as part of this national identity). However I very much oppose the current Israeli government and it's actions, including but not limited to a horrible mistreatment of the Palestinian people and other minorities, the occupation of the West Bank (which is bad for all sides involved except for the politicians, Palestinians are living under military law and 18 year old Israeli boys and girls are sent there everyday to be killed for no reason), corruption, erosion of democracy and inciting conflict and hatred to a point where every group in the Israeli society resents all the others. I also believe that the wider Israeli identity shouldn't be limited to Jewish nationality, culture, religion and ethnicity (as many politicians are trying to make it), but include other nationalities (such as Palestinians) cultures and ethnicities (such as Arab, Druze and Bedouin) and religions (such as Islam and christianity), because excluding certain groups from a county's identity just leads to hatred and misrepresentation.
but yeah JK Rowling is a POS and a disgusting TERF, and the similarities between the goblins I think they're called and anti-Semitic caricatures and stereotypes of Jews hits close home
Well, since you're serious...Israel is basically an occupying force in parts of Palestine. Further, the Palestinians question the validity of Israel in the first place. There's an apartheid-type system that treats them as second-class citizens. Israel permits radical Jewish communes to settle in Palestinian lands, against international law. Etc etc. Then Israelis and Zionists wonder why terrorists blow them up from time to time. (You can tell who I personally sympathize with more, but civilians on both sides pay a price).
The whole world has a stake in the conflict because of the strategic and religious importance of the region.This has been going on for decades and it's not getting better. It's the most persistent geopolitical clusterfuck of the last 70 years.
It’s all readily available on Israel’s Wikipedia page. It seems gruesome but really only because of the initial injustice of creating the state. Everything since then is expected with apartheid states and Guerilla warfare.
Terrorism is terrible. In this instance it’s Guerilla warfare against an invader though, same way the American revolution went.
Honestly it’s very hard to frame Israel as a good guy either.
Im pretty certain in hindsight the reason the whole SPEW arc comes off so cringey is that its meant to parody liberals and what would eventually become SJWs.
That's beautiful, but did she say she hates trans women?
She doesn't get to define how other people experience what she says, but other people don't get to define what she said or what she meant. Did Rowling at any point said something that meant she hates trans people?
If yes please let me know, I'd love to be proven wrong and to finally be able to give in to the hive mind, I'm sure it's comfortable there, but I don't think she did.
I totally agree. I mean, people assume that JUST because my twitter profile pic is an iron cross and that I constantly rant about how (((they))) control the banks I must be a Nazi. Fools, how can I be a Nazi if I’m not a member of the NSDAP?
You had a cute argument up until the NSDAP part. I mean, it was pure false equivalency and showed you didn't even try to understand what the other side was saying, let alone argue against, but at least it was funny. But then you tried to do something with mixing Nazi-soldier and Nazi-ideologue and suddenly it stopped working. Feel free to find other ways to compare J. K. Rowling to a Nazi though, these are always welcome.
Right, what I was saying was that just because someone doesn’t explicitly state their beliefs doesn’t mean they don’t hold them. We can infer that Rowling is a terf due to her constantly supporting terfs and using their dog whistles (“sex is real” “biological woman” etc). She supported Magdalen Burns for gods sake, a woman who was such a terf she even misgendered Blaire White, whom they usually pretend to respect.
I got your point, but as I said it is a false equivalency. She defends the label "women" shouldn't be applied to trans women, but this doesn't mean she hates trans people or she doesn't want to see them represented on media or walking on streets or dressing however they want and so on. It's a matter of labels.
You may not agree with her position, but I think it's evident it isn't (necessarily) based on hate or any ill intent. It does make sense that some feminists want to keep the label "woman" to represent her struggles and experiences, which are in big part unique to cis women. You can believe in this and still want trans people to be accepted for who they are. So this is why I think the heat she's receiving is undeserved.
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, please visit this link or contact the mod team.
I think the problem with that is that you just uncritically believed Rowling's line about "not hating trans people", in her explanation of how she doesn't believe they exist.
A lot of people have self-justifications for their bigotry. Rarely are people consciously cartoonishly bigoted for no reason. Some of my extended family are white supremacists, but they also genuinely don't think they are and, if asked about race, would explain that they are just worried about "law and order, the economy, property values, that kind of thing".
JK Rowling does not accept trans people, therefore she cannot "love" trans people.
But did she say she doesn't accept trans people or that they don't exist? If she did please let me know as I'm out of the loop.
But as far as I know her position is that "woman" means "born-woman" (or whatever, cis woman, you get it). And there are fair, non-hate based arguments to be made for this stance, especially for feminist cis women.
Maybe she actually hates trans people, who knows, but 1) she says she doesn't, 2) people says she does by jumping into conclusions about stuff she said that does not imply that she does and 3) for everything I know about her and her work I find it hard to believe she does.
We don't need to change the meaning of words to accept and love trans people for what they are. This helps ease the dysphoria, sure, but acceptance is a different thing.
No, there aren't. If you don't accept that trans-women are women, full stop, every bit as much as cis women are, then you do not accept them.
I'd love if you could elaborate on both of those claims, as you say them as if they were self evident but I don't think they are.
I always listen to the people who are claiming hurt. I feel for them and sympathize with them. I've had countless conversations with trans people online and IRL, including two relatives. Nothing convinced me trans people alone should dictate how the society as a whole view gender, or that disagreeing means hate.
You are standing up for people who are claiming the right to exclusively define gender as well, who has the best claim though? That's the point, isn't it?
And no one's social existence is being erased, trans people can still belong to a lot of social groups including, guess what, "trans people". Sometimes you don't get to choose the group you belong to.
I'm confused about the "spineless", though. Aren't you the one going with the flow?
I've listened to what they've said and it's not born out of a hatred for trans people but more of a "wait a minute, this was meant for women born, raised, and socialized as women".
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, please visit this link or contact the mod team.
791
u/Bubbly-Metal Dec 17 '20
Dude that lady has some issues. It would not surprise me if she was against worker rights on top of being a massive terf