Main
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
view the rest of the comments
In order to destroy a horcrux, it has to be obliterated in such a way that it could never be brought back. If the horcrux is a living thing, you can just kill it by any method because magic can't bring the dead back to life. So if Voldemort had killed Harry, he would have destroyed the unintentional horcrux he created.
I think technically speaking he did kill Harry, but the remnant of Lily's protection saved him from dying all the way, and that's what caused him to meet Dumbledore in limbo or wherever.
I think it's fair to say that this plot point was kind of contrived and not really set up in universe, and although the specific magic that allowed it wasn't set up, it was a recurring plot point throughout the entire series that Harry never asked to be the chosen one and didn't like it, so the moment with Dumbledore represented him being "reborn" as a hero by choice rather than by random chance.
Honestly I don't get why every leftist wants me to hate the Harry Potter books. JK Rowling may be a piece of shit, but that has literally nothing to do with the content of the books. It doesn't matter if you're the most despicable Nazi ever to Hitler, if you write a book that captures the imagination of millions of kids and doesn't contain your ideology in it, you've written a good book. Hating everything associated with someone doesn't mean you hate them more.
edit: ok, I don't mean the book has to "not contain your ideology," that's impossible. What I mean is it has to not serve as a vehicle for your ideology, and it has to not contain so many problematic themes as to set it apart from other media in the same cultural context, which I believe applies to the HP series. I acknowledge the serious flaws in the books, but I think they should be looked at completely ignoring Rowling's stated political views, which people clearly are not doing.
You're not wrong about a lot of the hatred of the books being overblown, but they ABSOLUTELY contain Rowling's ideology in them
b a n k i n g g o b l i n s
Her book is neoliberal as fuck though
Sure, but so is most media. The Lion King is pro absolutist monarchy, and it's still a good movie.
Well yes, but that wasn't the point you were making, at least I thought. You said that what made the book good was that it captured the imagination of millions of kids and it doesn't contain your ideology. I was saying it does contain her ideology, which is why there was no real revolution or anything in it, and Voldemort lost on a technicality.
Yeah I kinda put my point wrong in that comment, I put an edit at the end since then.