[Discussion] Your Fave is Problematic: HP and Hogwart's Legacy

This thread is to discuss the many concerns and issues with this franchise, the problematic nature of supporting it, and the indoctrination of fascism and white supremacist dog-whistling within it's content as well as the beliefs and behaviours of it's creators.

Please read all posts prior to posting to avoid retreading talking points that have already played out.
Please review the linked material in the Original Post for context.

It's assumed you'll do your own homework before diving in, so your fellow forum members telling you to review the OP or linking back to previous posts is not rudeness, lack of listening, or dismissiveness - you are responsible for your own personal education journey, it's not the responsibility of others to bring you up to speed.

Promoting anti-trans rhetoric or talking points, spamming, or harassment will be removed without notice and may be subject to further moderator action as dictated by the moderation team.

Rowling is the forefront of the TERF movement in the UK, when trans people are telling me that playing this game (which to be fair I wouldn't play anyway because I don't like Harry Potter) is a sign you don't really care about trans people because you can't even stay away from one computer game, I'm going to listen to them.

Harry Potter and JK go hand in hand, I know a lot of the fandom wish that wasn't true, but even if you are not meaning to, it is still a signal you are sending out. Just like Father Ted and I.T Crowd is now forever tinted by Lineman's deep descent into Terfdom.

On a more personal level, I'm working for a company in the UK that just lauched a Harry Potter product, now normally when a new product is lauched, it's all over their socials, not a peep this time, as it seems they made the decision not to bring the noise down on them. They did no consultations with company's LGBT+ group, and frankly makes me think they don't care about their trans workers, god knows how they are feeling seeing it on the shelves. It did lead to a bit of convo point between me and my director though, and he seemed interested in the subject as he hadn't heard of any of the JK stuff.

Also I've been part of a community that had a big impact on my life, it was a podcast network, made a lot of friends through them and even had my own podcast on there. Then the head of the network and his partner were infected by the TERFs, we had a couple red flag moments that now I would have walked away straight away now but we gave them a couple of chances. Then we ended up walking away from it, privately, again would have handled that different now and made a public statement but think we felt a bit of loyality to them not to try and bring down the house. Turns out, a number of the other hosts had the same thoughts anyway and it collepsed around them anyway. Very sad end to the network, it was like seeing something poisoning your friends and you couldn't stop it.

to quote an irl friend of mine, all this seems to be showing the asses of a lot of allies who are only allies as long as they aren’t asked to do anything, change anything, or make even a minor sacrifice

I'm a non-Hogwarts player, but if you are boycotting because you want to try to hurt JKR financially, sorry, but you have already lost. I'm sure she got paid before this game had a single line of code. If the only thing you are doing to support the trans community is NOT doing something, then you are not helping. You can at least donate $60 to a pro-trans charity.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/

Trans Lifeline is also a good one. Going to add these links to the OP.

She's one of the 200 richest people in the world, so anyone's personal choice regarding not purchasing the game for themselves isn't driven by trying to hurt her financially at this point, and I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting here. If she were somehow not making any more money ever starting tomorrow, it still wouldn't matter, she'd still be excessively wealthy for the rest of her life.

Due to the particular circumstances, I feel like this is one of those instances where doing the bare minimum of NOT doing the thing (buying, playing, and boosting that content) actually does something - it does show the trans people in your lives that at least, for whatever reason, they can maybe let their guard down around you a little bit more because they can potentially worry a bit less if you're going to attack them like everyone else seems to be right now? Since this situation has kind of unfolded, there have been trolls intentionally spamming trans accounts and streamers with harry potter stuff to "trigger the libs," kids using HP to taunt other trans kids, and so on, so it's become pretty enmeshed and messy.

Donating to causes in need is essential, necessary, and good (something we should all regularly do for the causes we care about if we have the means). There are currently 11 states with 10+ anti-lgbtq bills going on right now, many of which are specifically anti-trans laws regarding trans children, so every little bit helps. Hate crimes against trans people are increasing, by design. Murders, beatings, outings, threats, etc, not just video game bullsh*t. All with the tacit approval of a bigoted transphobe that writes wildly popular content for children.

Amoebic wrote:

Due to the particular circumstances, I feel like this is one of those instances where doing the bare minimum of NOT doing the thing (buying, playing, and boosting that content) actually does something

IMO doing ONLY nothing is as performative as the shoehorned in trans character.

You can't hurt JKR financially.. that ship has long sailed.. she will be beyond rich just off interest from investments for generations. The only way to actually do anything is remove HP from the cultural zeitgeist so as to make her as irrelevant as that dude that started the Minecraft company. Especially so since she feels that continued support of the HP franchise means that people are in some sort of silent agreement/support of her.

There's always potential for any behavior to be performative for some. However, there are plenty of people who aren't engaging with it for these reasons and aren't sharing that they're doing so. That matters the same way as people who say they aren't playing it and why. Or being "performative" about it.

It still matters, and sure, it would be nice if more people did more than just not play the wizard game. That would be lovely! However, if this situation has taught me anything, even suggesting that is too great an ask for most people, so you adjust your expectations. You take whatever crumbs you can get when you're trying to survive.

People denounce performativity with a blanket; sure, it's often negative. It also assumes motivations are insincere and driven by personal esteem, and I would like to hope the people who are supportive are not motivated in that way. I would say that when a group of people are systemically ignored, ridiculed, silenced, oppressed, and regulated out of existence in hopes they'll conveniently kill themselves off, every voice showing support is someone telling you that they see you, that they recognize your existence and humanity, and they're willing to forgo a frivolous bit of entertainment to acknowledge that.

TheGameguru wrote:

You can't hurt JKR financially.. that ship has long sailed.. she will be beyond rich just off interest from investments for generations. The only way to actually do anything is remove HP from the cultural zeitgeist so as to make her as irrelevant as that dude that started the Minecraft company. Especially so since she feels that continued support of the HP franchise means that people are in some sort of silent agreement/support of her.

This was discussed in the Jessie Gender video, how the continuing popularity of the franchise is contributing to JKR‘s radicalization from someone who publicly apologized for liking a transphobic tweet to someone that openly bullies trans folk and funds organizations seeking to make trans existence illegal.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

IMO doing ONLY nothing is as performative as the shoehorned in trans character.

No.

This assumes that there is a certain set of things you must do, or a level you must meet before you can truly be found to be supporting someone or something.

I mean, it would be awesome if everyone could not buy HL, give $100 a month to a worthwhile charity and hold weekly protest marches in their area. But the reality is that not everyone has the ability (in time or resources) to do a lot of things. For some people, the only thing they can do is (a) not buy the game and (b) ask others to not buy the game.

If you can't donate a little money then you couldn't have bought the game anyway, so what have you even done? Thoughts and prayers.

One of the greatest ways we can communicate to someone that we care about them is to value what they value and care for what they care about. When a trans person says that it matters to them that people do not play this game, we show we care about them when we do not play the game. It’s not performative when it is the very expression of care they are asking for. It’s embracing what matters to them and saying in return, “you matter.”

That, to me, is the only thing trans (and so many other groups) have been asking for: to matter.

I’m not boycotting HL to stick it to JKR or to announce my allyship or anything so grand or public. I’m boycotting because I was told by people who matter to me that it matters to them. And that was enough. Period. Because they matter.

Well that was a late night comment that should have just stayed in the drafts. Sorry about that.

I want to touch on another pattern of trans-exclusionary radical feminists, which is often rooted in white woman victimhood that tends to hide behind accusations of misogyny and antifeminism in others in order to maintain positions of privilege within western societies. (I think both Sterling and Jessie Gender touch on this as well). By ascribing her trans critics and accusors as antifeminist and thus anti-women, it's easier to push the narrative that these individuals aren't actually women, but male aggressors, attempting to reframe the immense power imbalance as harming an unfortunate, defenseless, incredibly wealthy white women who is under attack.

She literally called her new podcast the "The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling," which is hosted by The Free Press (founded by Bari Weiss), and hosted by another gender-critical theorist Megan Phelps-Roper, a former member of the Westborough Baptist Church. In the show, she (rather condescendingly) explains how everyone misunderstood what she said and it's all just this terrible misunderstanding and she "never set out to upset anyone."

She can tell on herself so loudly as a bad writer and failed communicator all she likes. As a writer with limitless moneys, it's unfortunate she isn't able to hire better PR or embrace enough humility to listen to any selection of the best editors money could buy to avoid all of these frequent "misunderstandings." Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the goal.

Edit: dang, I was writing all that when stuff went down. I'm sorry, I understand.

IMAGE(https://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/screenshot_20230216-024457_twitter.jpg)

Jonman wrote:

Slight left turn.

My 9 year old daughter loves the IP. She plays HP games with her friends (the imagination kind), has a Hermione costume and assorted HP tchotkes.

She's played the LEGO HP games (which to my probably faulty recollection, there was no/limited pushback to from this and other communities at the time).

Those ships have sailed. But what do I do now? It's only a matter of time before the game comes onto her radar, likely from a friend at school playing it. It would be an easy out for me to say "we don't have the money for it", easy because it's true right now - the family doesn't have spare dollars for $60 games.

But this is a girl who (currently) identifies as gay (which I'm aware may or may not stick once the hormones come online), doesn't bat an eyelid at the concept of gender fluidity or the notion of non-binary genders, and is a little social justice warrior in the making. And her response to not being able to afford the game will likely be "I'll save up my allowance and buy it for myself".

I'm struggling with (a) when and if it's age appropriate to start a wider conversation about art and the artist, and (b) piss all over something she loves and ruin it for her, when her 9-year-old interaction with the IP is pretty dang positive (Hermione being a smart, self-possessed girl serves as a positive role model). As upthread posters have talked about their childhood love for IP by arseholes, I don't know how to balance the genuinely good things she takes from it with the arseholery.

I'm not looking for permission to let her have the game, and maybe this is a question better suited for the parenting thread. Just trying to figure out how to approach topics like this with a kid.

Jonman, I hope this doesn't sound too self-righteous. Please let me share my thoughts. I'm not perfect, and I'll go into that further below.

If your child has indicated at the age of 9 that she is gay, then I feel it may be incumbent upon you to protect her from the potential harm that may eventuate later when she realises she was enjoying a whole lot of content from a creator who is against your daughter's very identity and existence.

That is to say, it may be better to guide her away from something like HP etc than risk the possibility she will develop self-hatred etc once she is older and it is drawn to her attention. Give her lots of love and support (which I'm sure you will) and help her build resilience and sad it may be you will have to reveal that our heroes and idols aren't perfect people and we get judged by our acts and omissions. But better for your child to feel disappointed in her idol than to develop deep and lasting complexes that may never heal.

I recently had a father-son moment of pre-emptively teaching my teen boy about the dangers of following the Andrew Tate cult and similar content because the last thing I want is a misogynistic son who represents the toxic masculinity I have been fighting against my entire life. This is part of our parental duty, I feel. We need to teach them to identify what is harmful, to question and challenge it.

That same son? Earlier this year, he bought Gaijin golden eagles so he could buy some premium WW2 aircraft to play together with his friends. Gaijin publishes Warthunder. Gaijin is a Russian developer. I abhor the Russian war of aggression. Yet here I am in this thread.

I am still collecting my thoughts on this issue in the HP/JKR context. I don't think it's cohesive enough to share. What I do know is that Goodjers should reflect on the fact that some of our community believe this is an existential crisis level of conflict; and at that point, perhaps those with HP tinted glasses should acknowledge their feelings before wading into the debate.

Even if it is "just" performative because it's simply not doing something rather than actively doing something, it's still providing more actual support than the people trying to tell trans people that they still support them while refusing to do what they're currently asking for. At the very least, it shows you'll listen to them more than just when it's convenient for you. That next time, if what they ask for is something potentially more inconvenient than just not playing a new video game, they know you'll probably listen then too.

And to be fair, I think everyone on GWJ who has played HL would also listen if the immediate stakes were higher and more obvious, but now there'll be some level of mistrust and doubt because trans people know that when the stakes were low, they didn't listen. Like, I don't think any of them would even entertain the idea of voting for the kinds of anti-trans laws JKR advocates for, but at the same time, they're still willing to contribute to her cultural relevancy, which she uses to justify her advocacy for those laws. So while it's good that they'll listen for the big stuff, it can be more meaningful and supportive if they listen to the small stuff too.

If you think the main takeaway of this discussion on this forum is about being "performative" by restricting money going to JKR or donating to a cause to offset profits you have not been paying attention. It's been made very clear by multiple people over multiple threads that bringing any sort of argument about being performative or "not doing enough" is a surface level argument that is ignoring any of the nuance that has been presented by other people in this community.

Honestly can't believe that needs to be said after the last few days.

Is that not the definition of virtue signaling? It's the reason every company catches hate for their rainbow Twitter icons. Pretending to care but not actually doing something that might actually help.

I'm sorry, JKR has won. HP is not going anywhere no matter how much you avoid the franchise. It makes too much money. Doing nothing is not going to make a difference.

Edit: I'm not avoiding the game because I want to change people's opinions of me. I'm not playing the game and donating money because it's the right thing to do.

So just give up is the answer and not use this experience to inform further decisions or push the needle even a little bit. Got it.

CptDomano wrote:

So just give up is the answer and not use this experience to inform further decisions or push the needle even a little bit. Got it.

No.

Do something!

....and multiple members in multiple threads have said they are already doing something and it is wrong to assume it is not already happening. This is why I'm saying making that argument/statement now on this forum is just a surface level of paying attention.

Like no sh*t just boycotting the game or talking about how the franchise is bad is the bare minimum and you should be doing more has been the message from the start.

Frankly, I hate the term virtue signaling because it’s just trying say that though someone might be appearing to do the right thing, they are bad actually because I, the person using the term, have a magic view of what’s going on inside their head.

And you don’t.

As far as performativity goes… read some Judith Butler before using that would be my general advice.

At any rate, Amoebic said in thread why they appreciate it when people don’t buy the game. If it were me, looking at all the trolls and bad faith posters who outed themselves as insecure bullies, at what we’ll meaning people here have had to deal with since this stupid game launche — I’d take them at their word and maybe save my weird virtue signaling criticism for another day. It’s not hard.

I'm not going to assume that people are doing something while some are at the same time saying performative actions are good support.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

I'm not going to assume that people are doing something while some are at the same time saying performative actions are good support.

So the thought process is that if someone recognizes the positive actions of someone else (even if they can be described as performative) then the original person can't possibly be doing something themselves? That doesn't make sense

Not sure what’s so performative about it. I don’t see anyone around here looking for even a pat on the back for not playing the game. It’s a small thing, yes, and there is more than one could do, but the fact that larger more important actions are possible doesn’t invalidate the small ones. That sounds like the argument that boycotting the game does nothing because you’re not boycotting every problematic video game or company.

I'm not making assumptions.

I'm telling anyone here that needs to hear it doing nothing is not going to push the needle. If the only thing you want to do is make people here like you more, then fine, do nothing. If you want to encourage change, do something.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

I'm not going to assume that people are doing something while some are at the same time saying performative actions are good support.

I’m significantly less worried about virtue signaling when there are people out there who are quite literally under attack simply for existing.

Can we reframe this discussion so it’s constructive? Instead of saying people aren’t being supportive enough (based on some gut feeling about the motives of other posters), how could we turn this into a more positive rally for change?

If me telling people to do more is somehow offensive, then Do More. I'm telling that to myself as well.

It's not being offended, it's trying to understand what you are really trying to say because it's A) not constructive and B) has already been said in multiple ways.