I feel your pain, there is one asshole bird in my neighborhood that chirps literally 24 hours a day, not sure how the fucker hasn’t starved to death by now since it never shuts up.
That’s it. You let the meme fester in your mind. Slowly, the more you think about it the funnier it gets. Coincidentally you’ll also have a much more difficult time preforming, communicating with others and reading. You will think about it more and it’ll get funnier. You will notice a punk slime dripping out of your ears and nose accompanied by a rotting smell emanating from your skull along with flies buzzing around your head. It will be at this point when you’ll truly understand and appreciate memes like this.
In Internet culture, shitposting or trashposting is the act of using an online forum or social media page to post content that is of “aggressively, ironically, and trollishly poor quality”. Shitposts are generally intentionally designed to derail discussions or cause the biggest reaction with the least effort.
It’s fascinating that profits hinge on providing a slightly below par experience on most forms of social media, dating apps included. Facebook et al require it for rage interactions while dating apps need it to maintain a userbase to populate and pay for the service.
To be honest I don’t think it does need to keep the users who succeed to stay profitable. It’s just they can’t handle the numbers not growing every year. There are always new people trying to find a date, and I think a service that wasn’t greedy could make something that works for the users and the company both.
In this case, you’re talking about a chicken turning back into an egg. The chicken has already grown large thanks to massive venture capital loans, server costs, and the board that appeared upon its explosion guiding it toward further engorgement. Dating apps don’t, by definition, have to partake of ultracapitalism, but every single major example unequivocally does.
Most of them were acquired by match.com, to even avoid the chance of any competition. How regulators allow this monopoly should be a question for criminal court (similar to many other industries, like letting facebook purchase instagram and whatsapp many years ago)
The chicken to egg metaphore is perfect, though they could be forced to change with strong regulation. Monopolies should be either broken up to allow true competition, or should only be allowed to operate as thightly regulated utilities (like electricity distribution networks).
People still totally meet and have success on dating sites. A friend of mine and his wife separated about a year ago, a few months ago he got on Bumble, went on some dates, and met someone he’s now getting serious with.
What an absolute joke. Its basically instagram, and almost everyone on it is completely braindead in discussion threads… and almost all the image posts are either I’m so pretty! or cats or landscapes, or Why are people so hard to find?
Kippo is even more hilarious. Nearly every profile is just trying to recruit you to watch their E girl twitch stream or onlyfans and is not interested in dating.
Boo is the best dating app I’ve used outside of Facebook Dating. It’s still pretty shitty though, and I wholly agree with your criticism about the discussion threads.
Actually gamifying the use of their app as a social media platform to gain further privileges on the dating side of the app is a genius idea though, but it’s executed so poorly. If it had the high quality discussions of Lemmy/Reddit, or the plethora of edgy memes you find on 9GAG, Facebook, iFunny, etc, then it could be a game changer.
I could go on a massive rant about how Tinder is dogshit and every other dating app has been bought out and transformed into yet another Tinder clone by greedy monopolistic cunts who the Federal Trade Commission should have shut down years ago, but I’ve already wasted a lot of my energy ranting about my shitty experiences before.
Maybe we wouldn’t have an incel epidemic if the modern dating experience wasn’t so awful for men.
As I’ve said before, Facebook Dating is the best experience I’ve had, and that’s primarily because Mark Zuckerberg is more motivated by harvesting all your personal information, not by suckering you into paying 4 times the price of a WoW subscription just to see who liked your profile.
Kippo is even more hilarious. Nearly every profile is just trying to recruit you to watch their E girl twitch stream or onlyfans and is not interested in dating.
Sounds like Okcupid to me. I get a lot of matches on there, but they’re all either:
Scammers trying to lull me into a crypto investment scheme.
E-girls using the platform to plug their OnlyFans
African and South-East Asian ladies who discovered GPS spoofing and are on the prowl for a Western husband and the means to a green card.
I think that dating apps and social media in general are part of why there are so many incels, and now femcels.
Its literally just as simple as ‘Everyone seems so pretty, rich and happy’ and then that devolves into a whole bunch of self reinforcing stereotypes that become world views.
We have basically made being a fake idea of a person into something seemingly obtainable to anyone, even though it almost never is, and to actually maintain that after you’ve basically lucked into having a following, you almost have to become an insane / shitty person.
Also, I used to have good luck with OkCupid, but yeah it enshittified not long after MatchGroup, or whatever huge conglomerate that owns basically every US dating app, purchased it.
And that large conglomerate itself is now owned by Facebook/Meta, if I am not mistaken.
So… yeah. Corporate monopolies ruin everything.
Maybe we should all try that insane 4chan dating app and then have our identities stolen rofl, at least it isn’t sold out hahah.
I wouldn’t say it “worked” for me… When I state that they’re the best dating apps, it’s more like comparing the experience of eating a shit sandwich without any toppings to adding something like mayo or BBQ sauce in an attempt to drown out the taste of fecal matter. You can’t polish a turd.
No, actually. I’m really into hookup culture and it’s still shit.
It’s like, those of us who just want sex have all the “I want a monogamous life partner” people thrown at us, and those of us who want a beautiful relationship have all the “I just want to fuck around” people thrown at us. It’s the exact opposite of what anyone wants.
That gives me a brilliant idea though. I should team up with one of my friends who wants a long term relationship. We should refer people to each other.
People said that 10 years ago, and i always disagreed. Now a days it’s an absolute nightmare. Everything that used to be free is behind a paywall. Set the max distance to 30km? Fuck it, here’s people from thailand and china and kenya.
Just glad to be out of that field entirely. Married for almost 5 years, met 2 years before that on OkCupid. Apparently she was nervous about it and her friend told her it was just pizza, she didn’t have to marry me. Never been so happy her friend was wrong.
I was like ‘maybe I can help a guy out’ but I have a strict furry-only policy and I didn’t see anything from a quick glance of your profile suggesting you weren’t a normie. Sorry my man.
(I don’t fit the categories anyway but any is better than nothing :p)
The first guy I ‘dated’ (early in my life, closeted, neither one of us made it ‘official’) was a good first experience and stepping stone, and during that time I joined the furry fandom. I found the community very kind and welcoming, and except for fringe cases, it was what I wanted to submerge myself in, likely for life. I was (am) a massive geek, and because of that + other ‘weird’ factors, I had only a couple friends in grade+middle school, and a half-dozen in high school. But the fandom was so welcoming and non-judgemental, and compared to the hell that ‘normal’ people were to me, it was a no-brainer that I should start dating other furs. A few months into my second relationship, I made it a rule: furries only.
I lost a few (not) friends, a clan I was a member of booted me, and a few other negative events happened in that first year or so. But all those people are, frankly, shitstains - if you cut a person you’ve known for a year+ out of your life because of an interest in anthropomorphic animals, you are a narrow-minded dumbfuck. But it was for the best - I’ve met so many great furs in the 20 years I’ve been here, and I’ve been able to speak my mind about almost any topic without fear of judgment or retribution. The vast majority are well-educated and so I geek out easily, once I get comfortable with someone new.
While my perspective on the general public has shifted towards (but not to) the positive side of things over the last decade, I’m not really interesting in broadening my dating pool just to get attacked, harassed, belittled, or worse. Hell, I’m gay, furry, satanic, disabled - the target of many, just because of my beliefs, my body, my existing. But in the fandom, it’s not like that. It’s comfy and safe here.
For the right person, someone who at the very least understands who I am, what I like, and why… maybe. But if they were really the right person, they’d throw on a fursuit head and come be silly and happy with me. I’m not going to be less ‘weird’, so if they aren’t at my level, they must be willing to rise to the challenge :p
I’ve seen furs in their teens, with parents at conventions. I’ve seen grandparents and similar furs at cons, too. And of course, everywhere in between. Life is boring as fuck, and I’m far from the typical ‘normal’. So why should my dating and relationships be any different? Give me the ‘weird’, and skip the haters.
E: and ofc this all applies to flings, too - I tend to catch feelings, so the two go hand-in-hand
I saw you said you’re satanic? Judging by being on Lemmy, do you mean TST? If so, you should check this out: queersatanic.com
TLDR: TST is run by two guys who are suing 4 former members for criticism on Facebook. They’re also suing news sites for even reporting on this. The leaders of TST are big babies that keep refiling the lawsuit to drain the defendants of money.
Well that’s troubling. Yeah I’m a TST member (my username + .com gives some background, if interested) so I’ll have to keep checking on this and how it develops. Followed them on Twitter.
Yea, I’m not a member, but I saw a queer artist in Seattle handing out these zines and skimmed it. Super bummed about it because TST seems so good work otherwise.
Heyo yee. When I met my partner 14 years ago at a rave they were wearing a cat hat, and I had a fox hat and tail on. I got to know them better and realized…. They have proclivities. Then we went on a “date” that I said wasn’t a date, and they had their sketchbook in their bag. Some heady yerfing stuff… I instantly was in love. We’re married now. I wish the same experience for you.
I wish they would just let ai always give these silly answers instead of patching them. Ai is dumb as shit but the bullshit answers are often comedy gold. I need these laughs in my life.
The spell was just gibberish to me and I couldn’t read it until I read the answer. Only than I would parse it. If you asked me for a spell to lift things up, I would have no idea but someone both things made it make sense. Curious how brains work.
At least mine. JKR’s brain doesn’t seam to work anymore for good sadly
I would qualify, if I were able to get old enough - unfortunately I was murdered by Groot upon being yeeted off into an endless abyss, where I starved to death before ever being able to hit the bottom of the skybox.
Do they? We see, what, two examples: the first, one who is overjoyed when freed; the other, a villainous character who echoes the morals of the slave owners. Where’s the evidence they like being slaves, outside of slave owners saying they do?
Winky becomes an inconsolable drunk after being freed.
The hogwarts elves cease cleaning the gryffindor common room because they are insulted by Hermione’s leaving knitted caps and sweaters around for them, and generally avoid and shame dobby and winky.
There are many examples of House Elves in the books who treat essentially the single one who was freed and happy about it as an abnormality. Look at how Dobby is reacted to by every other house elf. Hermione’s advocacy that they have autonomy is ultimately treated as being something only an extreme minority of their population would want and her continued efforts treated as comedy.
Effectively house elves are narrativly speaking a subservient slave species whom treating poorly is narrativly punished… but emancipation is not desired by the whole and they feel fulfilled as long as their masters treat them well. The profiting from their labor is framed as mutually beneficial.
They’re a nonhuman species and one probably shouldn’t assign human views and norms to them.
But then I’ve always preferred scifi and fantasy where the various other species aren’t just humans with weird ears but are actually very different than humans. Stuff like Three Worlds Collide or the Crystal Society trilogy for examples that are free online.
Hm. I’ll take your word for it. I had mostly checked out by halfway through the series; once Potter started acting like a petulant teen (which was probably the most realistic writing of the series, but also the most infuriatingly annoying) I stopped caring. I finished the series through sheer momentum but I think I skimmed too much, because I must have missed most of this.
I feel like that was more so her self insert, hermoinie, can be “on the right side of history”
This is my little headcannon theory and not a hill I even wanna fight on, so if there are blatant holes I’m interested I’m hearing but also keep in mind this is just something I “believe” because it amuses me.
Hermione is basically ridiculed and becomes a stereotypical “irrational activist” character during it. If she was trying to make Hermione the one in the right here she did everything she could to make her look like she was in the wrong.
Yeah I know and agree. It is her self insert or who she “identified” with the most, so I hand wave the plot holes of my theory away with the same literary finesse Jk Rowling has exhibited in recent decade or two. Like I said, not a hill I’m even willing to fight on lol.
The reality is she is an awful racist person, but I like to make both things true in my headcannon. Idk doesn’t everyone have loose silly things they kinda choose to believe in for fun?
I don’t know if Hermione is strictly a self insert any more than her other characters are, we just sort of assume that because she’s the girl. Oftentimes we see Rowling pop up in the framing devices and not the characters themselves. We are always drawn to some conclusion the plot wants us to. Often what Hermione does is a lampshading technique. She brings up the issues around moral issues but we are lead to see her concerns and advocacy as invalid as the plot makes them inconvenient or proven to be incorrect. It’s the actions speak louder senario. What the characters individually say is not wholly important because from an authorial standpoint some of them are intended to be misguided and Hermione is framed as good-hearted but ultimately misguided.
Hermione’s sense of moral objection is treated more often as a flaw, an annoyance to her peers and unneeded or even counter to the needs of by the people she is advocating for. She is more closely aligned to a caracature of how JKR veiws advocates of minority rights then a reflection of her own advocacy. That every other character tends to just ignore Hermione isn’t veiwed as a tragic instance. It’s played for comedy.
Where am I putting my head in the sand? I don’t disagree with anyone’s remarks at all, fully agree, and see nothing to criticize even. I ALSO amuse myself with this little story.
(The rest isn’t really at you and more I am on a roll now) I DONT actually care ABOUT my headcannon. Shit dude was I not clear it isnt an opinion I actually hold? I guess I should have disclaimed with all the “plot holes” I am aware don’t make this fit well too?
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××× Oh gosh this is now just a ramble I’m sorry I don’t expect anyone to read this) ××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
So here they are… (cuz I was trying to be succinct in my OP and fight the urge to ramble and over explain, here I am giving in fully. )
Every single aspect of the house elves is treated like a joke, haha look at this muggle who doesn’t understand and making a big deal of having a species completely and utterly subservient to wizards and witches. They NEED it to live happy lives, pretending it is genetic trait they all have and not idk centuries of being enslaved. How do they even reproduce?? Do they get conjugal visits? Are they set up to breed much like how people do with cattle, horses, purebred pets? Do female pregnant house elves get maternity leave and how does that work someone would please ask JK Rowling about this, I’m sure there is some system in place that looks absolutely nothing like slavery did /s
It is only “bad” for doby and he had a family that abused him. And he knew their plotting to kill a kid that had been a beacon of hope or awe
Hermoine is full blast white savior complex about it and never once LISTENS to what the elves say or ask them what changes they would like to have. Even in the bs fantasy of a species born to serve, there should be things they would still like to have. She isn’t even GOOD at it. Which is fine for a kid, just pointing out another way Rowling made hermoine a total joke.
Rowling also gives it the most ridiculous name that is clearly meant to ridicule hermoine even more… by giving it a name to have her club or whatever be able to be called SPEW for short. SPEW
And she doesn’t help a single elf. Harry does and he is also the only one to treat them as individuals.
IRRC Dumbledore does do something in some way maybe just reassure her the elves are treated more like employees at hogwarts but she doesn’t feel reassured at all and still keeps at it.
ULTIMATELY what I truly feel and believe about this little story and lore from the books is that Rowling is worse than she is given credit for. She not only seems to have this at best subconscious belief that some people are suited for slavery
She also shows a similar subconscious belief or bias that progressive people speaking against the status quo are naive, silly, idealists going through a phase and that when they understand how the world actually works they will agree with the status quo. The entire vibe I get is like the characters are giving hermoine head pats and eye rolls and calling her a silly girl.
That said dude it was like, early y2k we were still patting ourselves on the back for Will and Grace. The internet didn’t show you so many people’s random opinions. We did not have the type of discussions we have now, because now we have SO many points of view we can learn aboit. Now we can be aware of the more nuanced problems of systematic racism, the patriarchy, ableism, and more. Basically if she weren’t so awful now I don’t think we would be so critical of HER personally and instead critical of the artwork itself but disconnected as a product of the time and not a product of the artist. Jk Rowling makes the former impossible and the latter almost mandatory where she keeps saying more shit that suddenly new aspects of the series has different context with this new light.
Thanks. Sorry, I am in a mood to ramble tonight with poor self editing.
Even if that were the case the salves should been shown that freedom was better ( they like it because of Stockholm syndrome or something). By the end they should have been freed. Instead we’re just shown that you should be nice to your slaves (Harry and Kreacher).
Instead she made it like hermoine is wrong and the elves really do love being completely subservient to another species to the point of abuse and literally having no choice but to stay unless you’re given CLOTHING. It’s the most wild fucked up obvious lowest rung of society that desperately needs advocates and just… kinda stops there. It would be one thing if they just existed and we all later were like wait rhats messed up, like with the goblins. But no she brought attention to it throughout the book made it a whole side plot and absolutely nothing was ever accomplished. I think even later books sort of call back to this in a humorous way.
But I still like to imagine my headcannon being it. It makes me laugh more than being just a plain bigot does. It’s funnier if she is writing something she thinks a moral good character would do as her self insert and just still fails so miserably.
It just means the author’s intent is ignored in interpreting the work. Like if you, the reader, decide “the sky is gray” is a reflection of the main character’s inner turmoil, that’s what it means. Even if the author was just foreshadowing some rain, your interpretation is correct because death of the author means the reader’s interpretation is the correct one. It’s kind of silly, but it also lets people find new meaning in art and I think that’s neat.
People use it as “enjoy the art but fuck the artist” but I don’t think that’s entirely accurate, unless they’re choosing to interpret certain parts of the books as not coming from a problematic place.
From what I’ve noticed online, (yes I know this is anecdotal) people tend to throw out the death of the author as a way of saying “I know this person is shitty and paying for this is actively funding hate but also I am going to keep giving them money anyway”.
Like, yes… You should be allowed to enjoy the things that you enjoy… But also… Stop funding the death of trans people
I just read the fanfic. Though I absolutely don’t talk about it in public because the stuff I like is basically all pornographic. I definitely know all the trivia, but I don’t support jk Rowling financially (anymore, I did purchase the original series as it came out, but I haven’t otherwise paid for anything Harry Potter).
I just like the world and the fanfic possibilities of Draco Malfoy.
Not blatantly, but there are signs of it even in the first book; and as the books go on, you can see almost in real time her political views shift from criticizing the system to defending it as she started becoming wealthy and benefiting from the system.
I highly recommend watching Shaun’s 2 hour video on the subject, as it goes into great detail on the subject and makes for perfect podcast material.
Some highlights include:
Obesity as a moral failing - want to make a character seem bad? Just make them fat!
Masculine features as a negative trait for women (sound familiar?) - want to make a teenage girl bad (and ugly) but don’t want to make her fat? Just talk over and over about her “mannish hands” and sharp jawline.
Token minority characters that are often stereotypes or border on racism - the black kid is named Shacklebolt, the Asian girl is named two single syllable last names (might as well have called her Ching Chong), the 12 year old Irish kid is obsessed with turning drinks into whiskey and blowing stuff up, etc.
The defense of the slavery of house elves using the exact same arguments that slave owners used before the Civil War in the US mentioned by somebody else, with a bonus criticism of Hermione as a girl with blue hair and pronouns for questioning and trying to change the system.
There are no good or bad actions, only good or bad people. It’s okay for the right people to use the torture spell, because they’re the "good guys."
And a resolution that basically resolves nothing. Harry doesn’t kill Voldemort, he kills himself due to a magic technicality, and Harry goes on to become a magic cop to ensure the flawed system that the early books criticized doesn’t change.
I feel like most of those things are not accurate, or are not good faith criticism. It’s worth remembering that until the whole trans thing, the Harry Potter series was seen as very liberal to the point where some conservatives boycotted it.
-Harry isn’t a “cop”, like hes not walking the beat arresting people, hes a dark wizard catcher. Which is perfectly rational given dark wizards killed his parents and they’re pretty explicitly fascists.
-a pretty huge part of the books is devoted to how good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. Barty Crouch Sr is a whole character who is there to show how the good guys can end up being nearly as bad and brutal as the bad guys because they think the ends justify the means and in times of crisis people are willing to compromise their morals.
-Hermione is ridiculed for sticking up for house elves but she’s also right, as Harry starts to realize by the end of the books. It’s worth noting that the two most steadfast supporters of house elves are Hermione and dumbledore, aka Rowlings “always right about everything” characters
-Seamus is pretty yikesy in the movies but 90% of the stuff isn’t in the books. Idk I thought he was a little racist, although still ultimately a good guy. Cho Chang has a stereotypical name but so what? I don’t think it’s racist in itself. I literally work with a guy named Ying Yang.
-I don’t think obesity is used as a failing, gluttony is used as a failing, as in a favorite expression among leftists, the “fat cat”. There are plenty of other overweight characters that are good and righteous like Ms Weasly, Slughorn (kinda), and Hagrid.
-I’m not sure who you’re referring to with regards to describing teenage females as unattractive but that seems kinda cherry picked. Harry ends up with Ginny who in the books is described as a tomboy. The biggest female villain is arguably Umbridge who is very stereotypically feminine
I’m not defending Rowling as a person at all, or her statements about trans people, but the criticism of Harry potter feels very much like going back and reexamining them with an agenda. You can do the same uncharitable thing with any fantasy series. Hell, off the top of my head I can think of much worse criticisms of lord of the rings or game of thrones but people don’t seem to want to nitpick those the same way.
Id recommend watching the video that was linked in that comment. The points they gave were very much just summaries that don’t include the evidence to back them up.
Well, based off the little illustrations in each chapter he’s pretty similar to how he was portrayed in the movies. You can look up Mary grandpré hagrid to see what I would guess is Rowlings original vision.
Harry isn’t a “cop”, like hes not walking the beat arresting people, hes a dark wizard catcher. Which is perfectly rational given dark wizards killed his parents and they’re pretty explicitly fascists.
He’s part of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, the closest thing to his job IRL would be something like a cop in a gang task force.
I literally work with a guy named Ying Yang.
I had two professors in college named Bing Yang and Chingmin Yang. Both math professors. Had one for probability and statistics and the other for discrete math.
I’m not defending Rowling as a person at all, or her statements about trans people, but the criticism of Harry potter feels very much like going back and reexamining them with an agenda.
Because that’s exactly what it is. It’s mostly people that were huge fans that know the books well enough for those kinds of analyses, and they mostly didn’t start these kinds of positions on them until JK said things about trans people.
And TERFy stuff was still common enough just 15 years ago that when Mary Daly died all the big feminist sites wrote these glowing memorials about how she was so influential to their feminist beliefs and then most issued an apology, retraction or the like when they realized the size of their trans audience.
Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me, I guess. Money changes people; status and power changes people.
Obesity as a moral failing - want to make a character seem bad? Just make them fat
Although, there were fat good guys, and many non-fat bad guys. There wasn’t a particularly late amount of obesity in the books. That point seems a stretch, to me.
Token minority characters that are often stereotypes or border on racism - the black kid is named Shacklebolt, the Asian girl is named two single syllable last names (might as well have called her Ching Chong),
Schacklebolt is pretty bad, but I think we also have to consider Rowling’s cultural upbringing. Of she were from the US, it would be blatantly shocking. The UK didn’t have systemic domestic slavery based on race; I don’t know that it’s fair to judge her based on US critical race theory; the UK has it’s own version, for sure, but it has different foundations.
Rowling has enough criticizable behavior; we don’t have to exaggerate by turning otherwise non- controversial facts into issues.
the 12 year old irish kid is obsessed with turning drinks into whiskey and blowing stuff up, etc.
That’s most 12 y/o boys, but making it the Irish kid is a fair point.
I think nearly all of these ignore counter-examples where, e.g., every other Irish person in the family isn’t an IRA stand-in. That also ignore the fact that every true villain is WAS(P), and that the “crazy” character is so white she’s practically albino.
The defense of the slavery of house elves using the exact same
It’s defense only used by villains. Hermione actively pursues ending the practice, and it’s described as being a terrible practice. How does the fact that villains - and only villains, or in one case, inherited - in the books practice slavery condemn Rowling?
criticism of Hermione as a girl with blue hair and pronouns for questioning and trying to change the system.
Are we ignoring that Hermione was one of the four, central hero’s of each of the novels? I don’t remember any criticism of her except by the establishment.
There are no good or bad actions, only good or bad people. It’s okay for the right people to use the torture spell, because they’re the “good guys.”
Yeah. I agree, there’s a lot of questionable justification of behavior in this. I mean, everyone lets slide the exact same justifications in GoT, but, hey.
And a resolution that basically resolves nothing. Harry doesn’t kill Voldemort, he kills himself due to a magic technicality, and Harry goes on to become a magic cop to ensure the flawed system that the early books criticized doesn’t change.
Agreed. An utterly unsatisfying resolution, which I interpreted as a statement that there are no good and bad people, just good and bad behavior. When the key hero turns out to be not such a hero in the end; when you expect something more noble, but what you get is reality - good doesn’t always triumph, people in wars die indiscriminately, and in the end centuries of established practices continue and survive intact despite great upheaval… yup! It’s a depressing statement, but I still think it was a statement.
I think Rowling changed as money changed her; she hid bigotry less as she became convinced of the armor of her own popularity; but she also had a kid who grew and changed in time with the novels, and she changed the story to match the loss of innocence and realization that fighting the establishment is hard, expensive, and not guaranteed to succeed. The good guys do not always win; they don’t always survive the encounter coming out the same person they started as.
I won’t defend Rowling, but I also think some of the criticisms are reaching, merely in an attempt to vilify her as much as possible mainly for her homophobic views. Which, ironically, there were no examples of in her novels, and so nothing to call her out about except by its absence.
Isn’t that the fate of any activist in a communal group? And, in the end, she was right, wasn’t she? Isn’t it better to teach that activism will usually be met with resistance, by even your friends, than to teach people to expect your revelation of inequality to suddenly be universally be adopted by your peer group?
Not a great name for basically the only black person in the books.
Cho Chang = Both are Chinese or Korean LAST names. ‘Cho’ isn’t a first name in any Asian language, so she’s mixing and matching languages and cultures. She also only describes her as ‘Asian’ in the books, furthering how little effort was put in.
It’s like saying ‘Lombardi Fernandez’ is a European name. Ignorant on multiple accounts.
Oh okay, I didn’t make that connection. I wonder if it was intentional, that’d be lol
Cho Chang = Both are Chinese or Korean LAST names. ‘Cho’ isn’t a first name in any Asian language, so she’s mixing and matching languages and cultures. She also only describes her as ‘Asian’ in the books, furthering how little effort was put in.
I don’t know, does every character need that sort of specific cultural background associated with them? You give the example of “Lombardi Fernandez” and just describing that person as “European” or Latino or something liket that would seem totally fine to me. Actually the name being a mix could serve as a purposeful way of having their background be more vague not to tie it down in a specific country or even culture.
And with the name not being “correct”, doesn’t she use some wacky names for characters anyway? So it’s not like name authenticity otherwise is respected iirc.
Sort of, but she gave most people realistic names, it’s only with people further outside the central narrative that gets weird, and it goes further than just the name. I referred to my made-up character as ‘European’ and used common Spanish and Italian last names, which would be weird, but fine by itself. However, imagine if they were the ONLY white character in the entire book, and JK only wrote about how “Lombardi loved pasta and naps” as their main characteristics.
Cho Chang is a popular and smart girl who struggles with always listening to her parents, but suddenly becomes dumb around Harry because “she can’t focus around him”. She’s basically just a ManicPixieDreamGirl for Harry to have emotions about.
So, it’s not just about the name, it’s how the character is treated overall, and the way she’s treated is as a generic Asian romantic interest stereotype with a made-up name.
lemmyshitpost
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.