343
There is no ethical consumption of HBO’s Harry Potter series (www.theverge.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/television@piefed.social
177 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 5 months ago (6 children)

All science is built on the backs of the “content” created by generations upon generations of our predecessors, many of whom were far from saintly.

Schrödinger was a pedophile, but his equations are some of the most important and beautiful equations in physics.

Newton was an asshole, but his contributions to math and science are unavoidable in any STEM field.

To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.

I don’t have a horse in this race. Maybe it is beneficial to boycott the consumption of Harry Potter media in general. But you are wrong to assert that content created by a hateful person is fundamentally unhealthy to consume.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Im cautous to call discoveries a form of created content, likewise those things are peer reviewed amongst a group - you could theoretically rediscover shrodingers equations without ever learning from shrodinger, but almost certainly you could never rewrite harry potter without having read harry potter - thats because on some level, hp is a reflection of jkr herself - shrodingers equations are not a reflection of shrodinger, but of reality itself (possibly!)

    Didnt know he was a pedo though, yuck: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccacoffey/2022/01/24/schrdinger-pedophilia-the-cat-is-out-of-the-bag-box/

    To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.

    Is an odd take to me, should we all read mein kampf? Its just content right? Is it hateful to not read mein kampf? I dont think so. I dont think i am ignorant for not having read mein kampf either. Seperate the art from the artist? I do not. You seem to think i should tolerate intolerance - but it is good, in my mind at least, to draw boundries - but by your argument, any intolerance is hatred - all nazis, pedos, other evil-doers can be tolerated at your table, but not mine, i will blanket disregard them and protect my table from their influence.

    At most generous, ill look at their content through a purely analytical and guarded lense - treating it as dangerous, because i beleive it really is.

    (And for clarity, im not equating mein kampf and harry potter, nor jkr and hitler, its just a clearer example to make my case with)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Is it hateful to not read mein kampf?

    No…? Why would it be hateful to avoid reading a book because you don’t like its contents? But it is wrong to assert that it is impossible for a hateful/evil person to create non-hateful/evil content.

    While mein kampf is a piece of negative media, it is not the only content created by Hitler. I would wager that if I showed a person some of Hitler’s paintings (without telling them who authored it), they would not become more hateful just from viewing the landscapes and buildings. In fact, people tend to like paintings in general so it might even have a positive affect on their mood despite it being content created by an evil man.

    If you don’t like content, it is not hateful to ignore it. But to assert that absolutely nothing good can come from a person who has done evil things is wrong. You cannot be certain that there is no good within the bad anymore than you can assert there is no bad within the good.

    Any intolerance is hatred

    That is not what I said. Furthermore, I fully believe it is okay to hate things. I hate cruelty; I hate the bourgeoisie; etc. My point was that your assertion was backwards and contradictory. You were the one advocating for hatred while ending your statement with “choose love, reject hate.” I was pointing out that contradiction not asserting the morality or immorality of hatred.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Schrödinger and Newton didn't create stories, they discovered laws that explain reality. Their contributions were tested repeatedly. There's nothing fundamental about Rowling's work; this is a specious comparison.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    True, but their proofs had to be read. Their papers and books had to be read in order to be tested. Furthermore, those books and letters and papers contained content that was not purely mathematical. Especially in Newton’s case. Hell, iirc he disses on other mathematicians frequently in some of his works. But did that make everyone who read them hateful? Did people reading his works negatively impact the world? Would it have positively impacted the world if everyone had decided not to read any of newtons work? Or Schrödinger’s?

    No. Of course not.

    Now I’ll admit math was a poor choice for comparison to Harry Potter, but the point remains that bad people can make/discover/influence good things. And consuming media related to a bad person is not guaranteed to have a negative impact on your wellbeing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •