You don't get to 121k posts and two Poster of the Year awards without the unparalleled ability to keep a CE thread going for a few pages.
It’s a curse. In a way.You don't get to 121k posts and two Poster of the Year awards without the unparalleled ability to keep a CE thread going for a few pages.
Yes, but I was joking and you endlessly arguing about something like that reminds me that it was by reading your posts ages ago that I understood what a Devil's Advocate is. It's funny.Fair point. I don’t even like J.K. Rowling. I’ve only read one of her books and she seems like a bit of a dick. I’m just way too argumentative. Combination of that and the death of nuance on social media being one of my pet hates. Just winds me up the way everyone we disagree with has to be so completely one dimensional. I’ll take a break from the thread now. Like you say, I may have made my point enough times by now!
Take a wild guess what phrase was in her mind, either consciously or subconsciously, when she came up with that nameshe named a Chinese kid cho chang?
I think the definition of "doing inclusivity correctly" changes over time. As I said earlier, her "inclusivity efforts" re: the Patil twins can certainly be seen as clumsy, but I appreciated them as a kid and I still do today.If you're trying to add inclusivity then you should do it correctly otherwise it doesn't come across well and has the opposite effect.
There is at least some connectivity with the Patil twins and the culture they're representing (despite being able to argue laziness of them too) in comparison to Chang who has a confused background and name.I think the definition of "doing inclusivity correctly" changes over time. As I said earlier, her "inclusivity efforts" re: the Patil twins can certainly be seen as clumsy, but I appreciated them as a kid and I still do today.
Agreed - it’s a shame that Harry, the wizard, and Hermione, the witch, didn’t free all of the house elves in this magical world from slavery in the time they had between riding dragons and fighting evil wizards with their magical wands. It sets a bad precedent for real life.Some of the slaves, so that's cool.
Some of this just feels like people grasping at anything that could in any way be perceived as negative to jump on Rowling for, whether it has any basis in reality or not.
Would any of this matter if you didn't know anything about her opinion on trans (which you don't agree with clearly)? Or would many people care about it?
Im not sure what the “for what it’s worth” part is meant to signify? (Genuinely asking because obviously I’ve missed something)Sure, somewhere on the internet there's always someone, who talks about something. But you can't find that for a reason, because barely anyone cared. Now, 20 years later, it's a topic? Why? What has changed? The books have been there for 20 years. They haven't changed. It's the opinion that people hold of the author that changed, for statements, however offensive they may have been, totally unrelated to the content of the books.
Also the article you've linked literally starts with: "When I saw the latest Harry potter film", not book.
And for what it's worth, when I change the search to "harry potter nazi" with the same time parameters, the first hit is an article that starts with:
"JK ROWLING made the "chilling" discovery that villains in her books used the same twisted logic as the Nazis when she visited a Holocaust museum, the author has revealed".
It either means something or it doesn't. You're the one who used the word emancipated. You're allowed to think that emancipating some slaves makes for a good conclusion to a character arc, and I'm allowed to think that maybe it's not really such a big deal.Agreed - it’s a shame that Harry, the wizard, and Hermione, the witch, didn’t free all of the house elves in this magical world from slavery in the time they had between riding dragons and fighting evil wizards with their magical wands. It sets a bad precedent for real life.
…or it’s just a convenient plot device to show that x character is ‘good’? Which it is. This hyper-analysis of fairly basic fantasy children’s books with typical character arcs is bizarre.It either means something or it doesn't. You're the one who used the word emancipated. You're allowed to think that emancipating some slaves makes for a good conclusion to a character arc, and I'm allowed to think that maybe it's not really such a big deal.
Well, it is a little more nuanced than that. Cho and Chang are both Chinese surnames using the Wade-Giles romanization. Most people think of Chinese as pinyin where the name would be written Zhou Zhang but the West has had an awful problem with translating Chinese phonemes into written English. Pinyin is the most common but Taiwan still romanizes in Wade-Giles as Chang. It can get difficult sometimes on a wuxia forum I frequent because the Hong Kong and Taiwan posters always use variations of Wade-Giles and it looks really off to me being more familiar with pinyin. So yeah Cho and Chang are also Wade-Giles Chinese and not exclusively Korean.I don't think she did stuff intentionally but I think it's also your job as a writer to make sure things are accurate and it's a problem when you use lazy stereotypes consistently or give a chinese character two korean surnames. Simple research would solve this.
This video was clearly made by an insane person.
If you watched the whole video and that is your conclusion, then my guess is that you're either a neoliberal centrist or a conservative.This video was clearly made by an insane person.
I'm neither.If you watched the whole video and that is your conclusion, then my guess is that you're either a neoliberal centrist or a conservative.
Well then you'll have to elaborate what exactly you disagree with. Preferably focusing on his major points.I'm neither.
No well adjusted person is going to produce or listen to a 1 hour 50 minute droning diatribe about Harry Potter.Well then you'll have to elaborate what exactly you disagree with. Preferable focusing on his major points.
I disagree, but I'll keep this sort of argument in mind for the future when I'm up against opinions I disagree with.No well adjusted person is going to produce or listen to a 1 hour 50 minute droning diatribe about Harry Potter.
I recognise the thumbnail. I think I lasted 30 seconds when I viewed it ages ago.No well adjusted person is going to produce or listen to a 1 hour 50 minute droning diatribe about Harry Potter.
I've no idea if JKR is a raging bigot or not or whether she's just guilty of creating well-meant, but lazy, half-baked characters.Well, it is a little more nuanced than that. Cho and Chang are both Chinese surnames using the Wade-Giles romanization. Most people think of Chinese as pinyin where the name would be written Zhou Zhang but the West has had an awful problem with translating Chinese phonemes into written English. Pinyin is the most common but Taiwan still romanizes in Wade-Giles as Chang. It can get difficult sometimes on a wuxia forum I frequent because the Hong Kong and Taiwan posters always use variations of Wade-Giles and it looks really off to me being more familiar with pinyin. So yeah Cho and Chang are also Wade-Giles Chinese and not exclusively Korean.
Also, it's not entirely unheard of for a child to be given a surname as a first name. I have a cousin who had a family surname given to her as a first name to honor that side of the family but it is obviously pretty rare.
That said, it's still a lazy and poor effort on the part of a writer that should be doing better (I don't think Rowling thought the character's back story through that much).
1hr50? Wow, I thought it was going to be around 10 minutes.No well adjusted person is going to produce or listen to a 1 hour 50 minute droning diatribe about Harry Potter.
Four million views. Feck me.No well adjusted person is going to produce or listen to a 1 hour 50 minute droning diatribe about Harry Potter.
She took one of the most popular Indian surnames and gave two first names to it. Thats all the research that went in there. This Cho Chang controversy is the worst I've heard of. Ridiculous doesn't begin to cover it. Michael Chang was Chinese, let's call him Korean because his surname isn't Chinese, wtf..There is at least some connectivity with the Patil twins and the culture they're representing (despite being able to argue laziness of them too) in comparison to Chang who has a confused background and name.
I mean she is clearly ragingly bigoted against Trans people.I've no idea if JKR is a raging bigot or not or whether she's just guilty of creating well-meant, but lazy, half-baked characters.
I can confirm that Chinese names can be confusing though. It's been something I've been very wary of since moving to Asia. Sometimes my ethnic Chinese colleagues are not sure what gender a person is from the name and now and then are not totally sure on which is the surname. It's normallly surname first but with say Park Ji-Sung you saw it written both ways round, particularly when in English.
1hr50? Wow, I thought it was going to be around 10 minutes.
Going to be one of the highest selling games of the year. Point, the online outrage bubble has much less influence than those participating hope.What do people think of the argument surrounding the new Hogwarts Legacy game?
the death of nuance on social media being one of my pet hates.
I don’t think Rowling is consciously antisemitic with the goblin thing, she’s just like most 60 something 90s liberals - see Baddiel and the blackface thing - who simply don’t ever interrogate their ingrained systemic prejudices (or 30 year old ethical template) because they’ve always seen themselves as “the good guys.”
It's not necessarily bigoted on its own, no, but we already know that Rowling is somewhat bigoted and ignorant.
...In other words, not much thought at all, just coasting on vibes/feelings.
I just love the idea of her phoning up the location manager or production design team “Listen, I’ve been thinking about the sort of tiling I want on the floor of the bank…”
Why quote my post about tiling? You think she made sure that scene was shot in a building with a star shape on the floor to further her antisemitic agenda?...
...
i guess nuance is in the eye of the beholder
I think you were being un-nuanced about what others think.Why quote my post about tiling? You think she made sure that scene was shot in a building with a star shape on the floor to further her antisemitic agenda?
But that’s different to what I’m moaning about in social media. Whenever people argue about something there will be disagreements about issues, or misunderstanding about each other’s point. C’est la vie.I think you were being un-nuanced about what others think.
I'm not into all the details of this, so this is more of a general comment, but once you discover someone is bigoted against a certain group, is it that big of a stretch to consider they might be bigoted against other groups?Once the decision was made to take down Rowling for her thoughts on trans rights, the next step was to twist all available evidence into making her also a racist antisemite.
This is nonsense man. The populist media at large have been doing it forever, often without the right of reply afforded by social media.What pisses me off is the the constant need for “the enemy” on social media (whether that’s a public figure, or someone you disagree with) to have no nuance whatsoever. A black and white, one-dimensional, bogey (wo)man. That seems a new(ish) phenomenon.
I think the point he's making is that no-one in this thread is saying this. There's a difference between saying that an author has a habit of lazy tokenism and careless stereotyping/commentary on social issues which impact minority groups, and saying they actively hate those minority groups.But that’s different to what I’m moaning about in social media. Whenever people argue about something there will be disagreements about issues, or misunderstanding about each other’s point. C’est la vie.
What pisses me off is the the constant need for “the enemy” on social media (whether that’s a public figure, or someone you disagree with) to have no nuance whatsoever. A black and white, one-dimensional, bogey (wo)man. That seems a new(ish) phenomenon. Once the decision was made to take down Rowling for her thoughts on trans rights, the next step was to twist all available evidence into making her also a racist antisemite. Nobody is allowed to be complex, or to have good opinions alongside their bad ones. That’s what I mean by lack of nuance.
Not in this particular culture war skirmish. Which is essentially pitching trans activists against feminists of a certain age. Whose politics would generally be fairly left-leaning and progressive on other issues. Obviously racists/bigots are going to pitch in on the same side as the TERFs but that doesn’t seem to be why Rowling got involved.I'm not into all the details of this, so this is more of a general comment, but once you discover someone is bigoted against a certain group, is it that big of a stretch to consider they might be bigoted against other groups?
Fair point. Caricaturing those with differing politics to you is not a new phenomenon. But, as you say, that was usually by media organisations with political agendas. It’s depressing seeing ‘normal’ people adopting the same attitude.This is nonsense man. The populist media at large have been doing it forever, often without the right of reply afforded by social media.
Nah, it really doesn’t. Definitely not in this instance. There’s no way that one clumsily named character somehow has the opposite effect to inclusivity. But more to the point, it sure as shit isn’t racist or bigoted.
This is a good point, but I never make it having not read a single line of the books.…or it’s just a convenient plot device to show that x character is ‘good’? Which it is. This hyper-analysis of fairly basic fantasy children’s books with typical character arcs is bizarre.
I'm not sure I see any substantive difference between "Parvati Patil" and "Cho Chang" that would make one more objectionable than the other. They're both names that clearly indicate the racial background of the character in what could perhaps be described as lazy, but surely no worse than that.There is at least some connectivity with the Patil twins and the culture they're representing (despite being able to argue laziness of them too) in comparison to Chang who has a confused background and name.
I simply can't agree with this. Some effort is better than none, and holding a children's book written in the early 00s to an exacting standard seems excessive in my view.The clumsy name is key to it having the opposite effect. Especially in these times of instant research. Give an a African character a made up iliterative name and its clearly racist? We are jst not as familiar with other racist tropes maybe?
Well put.…or it’s just a convenient plot device to show that x character is ‘good’? Which it is. This hyper-analysis of fairly basic fantasy children’s books with typical character arcs is bizarre.
The early 2000's wasn't the dark ages. I'm not saying hang her, just that it's not really inclusivity if you can't be bothered to research a name. And Rowling could have easily got an authentic name if she had any interest in doing so.I simply can't agree with this. Some effort is better than none, and holding a children's book written in the early 00s to an exacting standard seems excessive in my view.
Fair enough. I think I'd say it's still some level of inclusivity, but we're splitting hairs and largely in agreement at this point.The early 2000's wasn't the dark ages. I'm not saying hang her, just that it's not really inclusivity if you can't be bothered to research a name. And Rowling could have easily got an authentic name if she had any interest in doing so.
I'm happy with that.Fair enough. I think I'd say it's still some level of inclusivity, but we're splitting hairs and largely in agreement at this point.