GoodBearComics | website

Transcript

4 Panel Comic

Panel 1: Ron Weasley sits in front of a fireplace with a Gameboy Yellow with Pokémon Red in hand.

Ron: Harry, these muggle games are so fun!

Panel 2: Harry Potter sits across the fireplace from Ron and holds his wand and a Gameboy Red with the screen and wand pointing at Ron.

Potter: Ron, look! My Pokémon is evolving from Abra to Kadabra!

Panel 3: Harry is horrified as magic flies from his wand

Panel 4: Harry comes to the depressing realization of what he’s done.

  • BillyClark@piefed.socialEnglish
    1029·
    2 days ago

    Lately I’ve tried to come to terms with the fact that I am unable to completely discard a creator’s work just because the creator is or was a horrible person. Like Michael Jackson has got to be thousands of times worse than Rowling, but I can’t stop liking his music.

    • Semjeza@fedinsfw.appEnglish
      43·
      2 days ago

      Ehh, Michael was fucked up by his circumstances and dad… He did terrible things, but I’m not sure how bad he knew he was being to those kids.

      Rowling has made it clear any money she makes from a year’s back will be basically fully deployed to actively make trans people, and anyone who might support them, worse off.

      But harm and “bad” are all inquantifiable, like all things that matter.

      Besides, all of this is a very post-19th century problem where celebrity itself and the parasocial connection with creators has become such a large part of how people self-identify and find community. (As with Capitalism consumption = identity.)

      • BillyClark@piefed.socialEnglish
        82·
        2 days ago

        Lots of the worst criminals have tragic back stories. Maybe demented by childhood trauma. Maybe they never had a chance due to sharing genetics with their abusers.

        Heck, for all we know, Rowling might have some sort of trauma that helped shaped her into one of today’s leading assholes.

        What I do know is that Rowling doesn’t seem to have broken any laws, but I have been told that Michael had individual victims whose lives he likely altered for the worse with criminal actions. (I speak with a little hedging because I haven’t actually reviewed any of the most recent evidence against him.)

        • Semjeza@fedinsfw.appEnglish
          25·
          2 days ago

          I’ll acknowledge that Michael broke laws while (the thoroughly vituperable) Rowling has not.
          But I don’t hold that to be an arbiter of morality.

          For me it comes down more to how they seem to view other living beings.
          Michael has no clear evidence of deliberate, knowing, harm. Yes, he should’ve known better, and without being in his head I can’t know for sure… But it seems to be plausible.

          Meanwhile J. K. (I feel more comfortable with a gender neutral name even now everyone knows me but gender bending is right out) Rowling has made it clear that she doesn’t value trans-people as much as cos-people and is willing to set up conditions which greatly increase sexual assault against trans-women if it might only slightly reduce the threat of sexual assault against a single cos-woman, and does not find issue with cooperating with actual neo-nazis and crypto fascists who have strong misogynistic and homophobic stances on anti-trans issues - despite claiming she doesn’t want to harm those groups. She is choosing to value particular groups and ignore, and create, suffering for others she seems abhuman. (And yes she has a tragic back-story of an abusive husband and marital rape, which she says is why she must ensure gender is immutable.)

          But - evil and harm can’t be compared and the totally different natures of what they do make comparison even more pointless.
          If you continue to enjoy either of their work (or that of any other harmful person, be it Marquis de Sade, H. P. Lovecraft, or whomever) more power to you - but just try your best not to fund She Who Shall Not be Named’s warchest.

          • nieminen@lemmy.world
            10·
            2 days ago

            If you continue to enjoy either of their work (or that of any other harmful person, be it Marquis de Sade, H. P. Lovecraft, or whomever) more power to you - but just try your best not to fund She Who Shall Not be Named’s warchest.

            Absolutely. This is a fantastic reason to pirate certain material. I’m all for paying the owners and creators of materials I enjoy for said material, but there are exceptions.

    • Humanius@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      2 days ago

      I think there is a very big difference between listening to Michael Jackson’s music in 2026 and engaging with the Harry Potter universe in 2026.

      Michael Jackson is dead, so any money going to his estate isn’t actively being used anymore for malicious purposes. JK Rowling is very much still alive, and actively using her position and wealth to try and eliminate trans people from public life.

      Any money going to Harry Potter is also money going to JK Rowling and therefor supports transphobia

    • arrow74@lemmy.zip
      5·
      1 day ago

      I can appreciate the importance of Harry Potter to my childhood. I even own the movies, purchased well over a decade ago, so I wouldn’t feel bad rewatching them. If I ever felt inclined to re-read them I’d thrift or go to the library.

      But I will never give her another red dime of my money or consume any of the new media. As long as I live I will not give the franchise any of money.