That's kind of an individual thing. Like, I get it, I get what you're saying, but, when I think about the books (which I used to love), I just didn't think of them fondly anymore; I can't think of any of those characters without that irritation and disappointment coming up.

I was super excited about having my kids read those books -- and my oldest started the series, but then needed a break to mature a little before hitting book..3 I think? Idr. And now I just don't really care whether they read them. (If they do choose to read them on their own, I won't tell them about JKR until after they've finished them.)

However I have no problem setting aside the shittiness of Knut Hamsun or Henry Miller; I still really enjoy their books. Heidegger? Too shitty for me. Picasso: meh, he's fine.

That's My Hot Take: if it bothers you, acknowledge that, and don't force yourself to be uncomfortable. But also don't shame people for whom her toxicity is something they can set aside.

(As long as they are setting it aside and not enjoying the work because of her toxicity.)

That said: pirate her shit, you don't need to give her money.

Cylons being manipulated by other cylons doesn't absolve them of guilt.

BSG did have a few instances of the reverse of OP's question tho -- where the "good guys" turned out to be bad" -- trying to say this without spoilers; it's a 20 year old show but ffs of you haven't seen it, go see it now.

• the (temporary) new admiral
• several main characters during the part where they live on the dirty planet
• a very specific set of seven main characters (wink wink) ... .and more,..

And there's one specific example of the full 360 -- a character that starts good, turns bad, but turns out they were actually good all along. I won't give the name, but they were passing messages to the resistance.

That show was awesome.

One note tho, on the topic generally: flipping character alignments is a frequent pre-shark-jump thing, and is often bad writing. In BSG, tho, all of the "flips" are pre-planned, or at least 100% true to their character (eg the 360 example above).

it's weird that it happened twice

Everyone who dabbles in programming eventually learns :q. Not everyone learns :wq.

I'm not sure it was ever accurate for people who weren't already conservative.

It makes a lot more sense that, as you get older, you stop growing and learning, so as society progresses, your formerly progressive views become commonplace and eventually anachronistic.

(That's 100% what happened to my mother, who was a hippie, literally flowers in her hair, and now "just doesn't really get the whole trans thing")

And, if a person was progressive, but had some secret conservative or regressive values, those values come into sharper relief when their other views become commonplace -- and, as you get older, you're less interested in hiding your flaws and/or shameful values, so they come out more.

(That's what happened with my dad, he was in folk music groups in the 70s and then became a doctor and didn't like the idea of poor people getting some of his money (even though it was those same programs that kept his mother afloat after his father didn't come back from Korea).)

Just to make we fully exhume the original argument -- I hang out with a lot of trans and nb people and I've noticed people just saying "they" to everyone, and I kinda love it. If everyone's just they then no one needs pronouns. The first part of the long term mission, to destabilize gender completely, starts with shit like that - taking all gender out of language.

Look, if you didn't want to be price gouged, you shouldn't have paid those high prices! Vote with your wallet!

(For those who think I might be serious, I'm not. Voting with your wallet isn't democratic, it's literally plutocratic.)

Kidding aside, there's a clip of some grocery store chain CEO talking about how they will raise their prices as high as the market will bear - it's chilling, but, like, in the USA, it's the law - it would literally be illegal if they didn't.

There was that Big News Derailment a while back - but what they didn't bother telling us at the time was that there are derailments on like a daily basis. It's incredibly common. They're not always hugely toxic, but is that required for us to care?

Fwiw the guy who made Brave is the same guy who who wrote JavaScript. He created Firefox too iirc, but was booted by Mozilla for being loudly and publicly homophobic.

I haven't heard anything about him being a pedophile, however.

(It's probably worth mentioning: he wrote JavaScript over the course of 10 days in 1995, iirc. Over literally the next 28 years, JS has been developed and maintained by everyone but Eich - so if you're weirded out by the fact that Eich wrote JS, he really did very little of it. If all we had was his version of it, it would be nowhere near as prevalent as it is today. JavaScript is still garbage, but at least it's our garbage.)

I think that just means you weren't part of the test group.

I was part of it. It's not that ad blockers don't work - they still work fine. YouTube just doesn't load the content; it's a full screen modal telling you to disable it.

When it happened to me, I was able to just open the link in a private window and it loaded fine - ive_never_seen_this_man_before_in_my_life.jpg - but that may have just been because it was a test; if they roll this out to everyone everywhere I'm guessing that wouldn't work.

The other thing that worked was yt-dlp ... Hopefully that won't be impacted by the adblock prohibition... That also gets around workplace filters (at my work anyway).

The whole point of a lifetime appointment is that they can abandon all political concerns once they're in the SCOTUS - so they don't have to be political. And I've seen that happen - while they obviously stay conservative or progressive, they tend to drift away from an alignment with the parties - with exceptions, obviously.

But, as with all other branches of the US government, it's becoming clear that we've exited the era of being able to trust our leadership to support the Constitution and represent the people.

(For me, it wasn't even Trump that snapped me out of that mindset. It was when they were talking about outlawing congressional insider trading. One of the Republicans said, out loud and in public, that the notion of prohibiting congressional sick trading was off the table, because it was a core part of the job. He said something like, "half of us wouldn't be here" - as though that was a bad thing.)

It's like not knowing what Bob Vance does.

There's a gaping and dangerous misunderstanding in there. Having money or being successful under capitalism doesn't mean you don't see its flaws. The idea that rich people can't be communists is like saying that only gay people can support gay rights.

Believing that the world would be a better place if we pooled our resources has nothing to do with whether you created an operating system that all of global computing relies on.