Its about time we talk about the connection between Harry Potter, Liberalism, and idpol.
and also how JK Rowling is the biggest blair simp
301 posts and 84 image replies omitted.>>33703almost every character besides the main cast of harry-ron-hermione is far more interesting than them combined even with barely any focus
it's why its so popular for fanfiction (besides just its general popularity)
>>42344you cant complain about "e-drama" being mentioned in a thread about a book series whose author loves tweeting out their thoughts as much as possible
also fun fact, we're on the internet
this argument is e-drama, oh no
>>42393>you cant complain about "e-drama" Can and will
>in a thread about a book series whose autho Everything to say about Rowling has been said so many fucking times (ITT included) it's beyond overdone. Posting twitter updates is EDrama and isn't actually new or relevant
>this argument is EDramaNo, that's not what EDrama means, you babbling baboon.
>we're on the internet Specifically we're on an imageboard website, on a board about hobbies like books and film, and this thread is about the Harry Potter books. Occassional comments about the author may be relevant, but only in regards to the actual written material, these posts malding about some Blairite posting tweets and getting responses from liberals has nothing to do with Harry Potter as a story or a franchise, it's literally Yellow News tier /isg/shit that belongs on that cancerous general.
Furthermore you proceed to pointedly ignore how much of a fucking reach the post I was responding to is. It's basically schizophrenic shit trying to tie two irrelevant things together using very loose threads. In fact
>>42343 is absolutely NO different to shit twitter libs say using Harry Potter analogies "Zelensky is Harry and Putin is Voldemort!" for example.
TL;DR: It's boringly trite and a tiresome negative circle-jerking about a topic barely even tangentially involved. Take it to /isg/.
>>42407e-drama means electronic drama
youre using an electronic computer hooked up to the electronic internet to argue about this
hence this is e-drama
>>42410 E-Drama as a TERM deciphers into Electronic Drama, but you're being deliberately obtuse, because by your metric, nearly EVERYTHING is E-Drama as our lives are intrinsically connected to the electronics at this point. This is of course incorrect. E-Drama is used specifically in reference to INTERNET dramatics that are purely online and/or superficial that illicit high emotional reactions and argument; stuff like "le Culture War" or "memes" of which this is an example of. This does not apply to electronics, any more than Electronic Arts would be used as a term for any type of electricity related 'artwork'. To summarize; Usage of electronics to argue is not in and of itself E-Drama, any more an email correspondence is "E-Drama".
Rowling's modern political views are only loosely related to Harry Potter's story. While her ideological beliefs may vaguely appear within and influence the story itself, it is not the focus, nor are her twitter rants usually related to Harry Potter, especially as of recently. Even when they are, it is a case of Death of Author, as they are retroactive claims from after the books and movies were made and finished. Hell, at least discussion of such retroactive shitposts is actually relevant and can be interesting to take apart from a literary perspective, but her purely political screeds and the idiots that respond to them are no different to Steven King's political postings and responses and how they relate to his literature, (in that they don't). Therefore they have no relevance to this thread, and belong in the "Internet Spectacle General" as it is purely online political
I repeat; it's been done to death ITT and outside it, if you wanna wank about twitter screencaps, do so on /isg/, it's tiresome to have multiple posts whining about the same irrelevant shit over and over again when there's literally anything else relevant to Harry Potter to discuss as a story. Culture War garbage belongs in the trash with the /pol/fags and libshits that take part in it.
>>424111) "X is muh bigot!" has been thrown around so much and so arbitrarily that it's become a meaningless phrase. Also, imagine taking sides on a liberal social media slap-fight. The people 'arguing' with Rowling are just as retarded, as demonstrated by the failed "boycott" of the most recent Harry Potter vidya and other idiotic takes.
2) Uh no, you underage idiot. I've posted this before - The Harry Potter fandom is one of the largest online fandoms to exist from the 90s to the 2000s, proven by the fact that the number of fan-sites, fanfics and fan-art as well as rip-offs and parodies of it exceed massive and older popular IPs like Dragon Ball, Marvel Comics and Star Wars. You kids don't seem to remember how insanely popular Harry Potter was and remains to this day. Harry Potter gets referenced constantly, the name is instantly recognizable. This is further remarkable given that unlike some later franchises that got popular in mass-media, Harry Potter did so in the very early days of social media and internet, when things did not go 'viral' easily, yet it spread across the world in dozens of languages and for multitudes of age-demogrphics, despite being initially aimed at child-teens within the Anglosphere. And considering that it did so initially in book format further proves my point, since visual media like film is more easily spread compared to written language.
>>42141People have been making this joke for literal decades, whoever this post was by isn't as clever as they think. Presenting a cold take like its hot unironically is redditor behaviour.
To be fair, re-reading Harry Potter, I start noticing little references to the socio-economic environment from the time-period of her writing, and her experiences in them coming up within the story's details; In Philosopher's Stone for example Mr. Dursley makes a joking remark about Harry taking his time with the mail, asking if he was checking for a mail/letter-bomb, something the IRA did do during The Troubles. Plus Irish people are often depicted as hot-headed, with explosive tempers (the historical materialism behind this is complicated so I'll detail that in another post later) which is also referenced. However people should also keep in mind this was clearly a passing gag/joke, and one that isn't actually referenced very often. I think I can remember only 3 times this gets mentioned over the entire series - maybe 4 - as it was mostly a one-off humorous moment of a children's story, not a political commentary. Neville's fuck-ups were far more focused on. If someone actually gets offended over something this mild then they're terminally burger-brained. Serious classical Russian literature would give them a fit in that case.
As a side note it would be more accurate to say Seamus is the only Irish character seen and interacted with directly. Irish characters appear, Goblet of Fire's beginning involves the entire Irish Quidditch Team, and other Irish characters are referenced directly.
>>42415 >She does not like trans people bro uygha, I do not care because her twitter shitposts have almost ZERO impact on real life. It's all online Culture War bullshit, and giving it attention is pathetic. What do you think screencapping her and talking about this shit achieves? She's become a multi-millionaire, she has quite literally mocked people for replying and giving her this attention stating verbatim that she can quite literally go dry her tears with her bills of money.
And again, it has basically nothing to do with the main thread topic.
>browbeat me in an excruciatingly tedious manner about how I'm a horrible SJW <Being a poorly read twitter-tard that can only read small excerpts like the media I constantly obsess over is akchually you being boringLeftypol used to mock /pol/ for not being able to read/discuss at length… disappointing
>Muh EssJayDubu! At no point have I mentioned this, you're projecting, because you're a terminally online liberal invested in a meaningless spook of culture war nonsense.
>by pointing out this simple factIf it was once or twice that wouldn't be an issue, but it's being repeatedly brought up ad nauseum, when nothing has actually changed. You may as well post /pol/ screencaps about the newest OP about how much they hate jews and commies, it's the same old shit that has no real-life impact. Go Outside, Touch Grass.
>Everything that isn't as short as a twitter post is a textwallOk /pol/faggot.
>>42417>we should be having serious and interesting meaningful discussions over topics like: could harry potter cast a vanishing spell on 119,980 ballot papers in, say, 2016 I agree with
>>42418 KYS for being a pretentious slippery-slope strawmanning faggot.
>>42433if you've got a magical (heh) third position beyond "talking about the author and the public discourse around the series" (which you've repeatedly said you don't care for) and "talking about the books and films themselves" ("pretentious slippery-slope strawmanning") i'd love to hear it.
no points for retard house if that position is "stop talking about harry potter", however, given you're in the harry potter thread.
>>42433the harry potter books have no real life impact. this thread has no real life impact. we shouldn't talk about anything. delete this whole website and hecking touch grass
>>42434that anon stinks of "centrist" debate bros whose entire schtick is having no real point while getting mad at "SJWs" for caring about something in the slightest
>>42458she shouldn't be seen as funny, she should be seen as
educational. it was obvious that she was a reactionary even when she appeared to have "normal" progressive social views. for those who knew she proudly aligned herself with the 2000s Labour party (which, like Rowling, has a wholly undeserved reputation for social liberalism), everything else follows entirely naturally. what would you expect from someone who wrote a book while on welfare, then promoted and donated huge sums to a government who's first move in office was to cut welfare for single mothers? what would you expect, in short, of an upwardly mobile wealthy british person?
of course they turn vehemently against redistributive or even reformist politics,
of course they adopt the social norms of britain's paedophile ruling class.
>>42457 >the harry potter books have no real life impact.Provably false. Your entire attempt at mockery is dead on arrival because you go beyond hyperbole and straight into slipper-slop fallacy nonsense. You need to "hecking touch grass" you braindead twitter brained ignoramus.
>If you want irrelevant nonsense to be posted in the thread it belongs in you're a "centrist"… entire schtick is having no real point I do have a point, you're projecting your own pointlessness. Rowling's political drama is purely online and you're letting her live rent free in your heads, and forcing it on everyone else ITT. Mocking liberals or even Rowling herself for using Harry Potter for real world analogies is one thing, but the past few posts about Rowling is just annoying internet spectacle that belongs on the general literally called that - /ISG/. As stated, everything about Rowling's politics that can be said, has been said ITT and outside it too, we don't need updates that are simply a new repetition of the old, it's tiresome and so irrelevant to the actual thread topic that IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE. Literally NOTHING is stopping you faggots from making a "Rowling Hate" debate on /isg/, it'd certainly get more replies.
<hating SJWSAt no point did I bring up or even implicate SJWs, you two nitwits did. Take meds
>for caring about something in the slightest <Shit up thread with twitter screencaps that are not relevant to the thread<Get told that its gotten tiresome and belongs in the existing thread for the subject of internet spectacle<"Waaaah, why can't I post my irrelevant identity politics squabble on a thread that has nothing to do with it!?" Disingenuous, two-faced radlibs like you deserve the wall. You come to places and shit there, then feign shock and offense for being told off.
Unironically caring about online drama that doesn't impact anyone and is entirely internet spectacle (e.g. /ISG/). It's not even discussion of media and stories which are still real in the sense of cultural impact and being works of art/writing/music, it's just being snide about some dumb social media post nobody will remember in 5 years time because secretly you're asshurt about what someone said on their social media account:
"Wow, Rowling said [insert some neolib shit], she's such a cunt right?", rinse and repeat a dozen times with slightly different wording, like a chatbot. Hell, Rowling probably spends less time on this shit than you morons do. Congrats on giving her attention!
>>42458This. Fucking this.
>>42459>she shouldn't be seen as funny, she should be seen as educational.In what way? The idea that a liberal is just an unscratched fascist is well known among actual leftists, and seeing this isn't convincing any liberal to stop being one, they'll pretend it's "just a bad egg" and lean towards whatever particular flavor of liberal cancer they believe in. If you already know the liberal-fascist pipeline, then watching Rowling's social media is a waste of time, because you already know, so why let some online nonsense be your personal boogieman?
>>42460lol the OP of this thread is literally a twitter screencap and explicitly prompts discussion about the series' politics
what are you doing man
what fight are you fighting
>>42840I watched them in my late teens by torrenting. My family never took me out to movies much so I just read the books from my elementary school's library.
>>42842Yeah. But again, it's a story for children. Children can live in small-ish worlds I guess.
>>42843I watched them only a few months ago again and found them enjoyable.
>>42842Aren't those just the ones participating in the Triwizard Tournament? Could easily be more.
>>42859He's a hypocrite, that's kinda a major part of his character. He's literally a neo-nazi /pol/ak half-breed. His blood purity shit is just an excuse, like any other fascist, because he clearly doesn't ACTUALLY care about it at all, he just cares about power.
>was it a well-kept secret Dumbledore only found out far later, since his mother had never been a Hogwarts student, and the Gaunt family was basically a forgotten pureblood family that no-one cared about, like some people are descendants of forgotten nobility who had lost influence centuries ago. Voldemort hid this fact from his followers and by the time it was known, nobody in the Pureblood circles that was on his side would even think twice about it.
>>42860Dumbledore did tell some people, but I think he kept it hidden because of a variety of reasons
1) Voldemort had too much power for that fact to affect his influence.
2) It would be the perfect excuse for anti-muggle Purebloods not aligned with Voldemort to claim that the muggle blood was what made him insane (after the fact of his downfall of course)
3) Voldemort would more than likely repress such information with brutality, targeting and killing people, and Dumbledore would not want to create a target out of people that knew.
>>42840Actually although I disliked the last 2 films, they're not actually bad per se, it's just it was so jarringly dragged out to many viewers compared to the prior entries, however from a cinematographic and storyline standpoint it actually makes some sense.
Personally however I would have liked Rowling to have capitalized on the grueling nature of the Horcrux protections like the Sea-cave had been - having The Golden Trio travel the world and meet/make new allies as they searched for the remaining Horcruxes and had to battle through monsters and magic, while risking the possibility that each mortal experience would be a failure like the Locket, maybe Voldemort had false trails or multiple hiding places with false positives and Harry would finally realize that the true location was back home and would return to England with new comrades and begin to organize a new (reborn) Order of the Phoenix resistance etc.
It would be easily worth 2 books of story-telling, expand the world-building and magical creativity while keeping the serious tone. Vid rel.
>>42842There are more schools, it's just those 3 are the primary ones in the West-European sphere. The scene in the books of the Weasley's and Harry at their tents or in the stands of the Quidditch World Cup is a demonstration of that.
>>42839It was intended as a children's/young adult story that you grew up with. As you grow older the stakes and story become more serious with each book, with the character's progressing maturity and experiences sort of mirroring the reader growing up with them. The political themes are purposefully vague, as this is before Rowling went off the deep end and threw her hat into the political shit-posting ring and began bickering with other liberals about identity politics on twitter. The main antagonists we get are corrupt people with evil intent, lacking empathy and who would use their abilities selfishly (and of course minor monsters and creatures with inhuman mentalities and understandings). In other words its a general concept of good vs evil, right vs wrong, oppression vs freedom, reactionary vs progressive and the grey areas in between.
I would recommend up to the 5th book IMO. Half-Blood Prince was weak in several aspects and Deathly Hallows left me with mixed impressions, both book and film(s).
>>42874 >a lot of HP fans think the last two are the best because they're 'more mature' (read: boring) Do they? Most HP fans I know of loathed the last 2 films, at least relative to the others.
What I meant about the films being good cinematographically is ironically that "camp holiday" you refer to, because it's actually misinterpreted heavily. The trio are, in the story, camping out for weeks, if not months and obviously they aren't doing nothing, but at the same time they have little choice to be careful in their actions after the Ministry-Locket debacle and how they're hunted by the entire Ministry and Voldemort. So we get excerpts of them, for lack of better words, surviving and trying to live, and it leads to developments like Ron leaving (and then returning), and the various traveling they do trying to find a clue as to what to do next.
A good line for example
>“Did you think we’d be staying in five-star hotels? Finding a Horcrux every other day? Did you think you’d be back to Mummy by Christmas?” That particular argument with Ron is a blatantly misunderstood in the film and book as RON being an idiot, rather than the whole lot of them falling apart as their aimless, fruitless attempts to achieve their task are clearly yielding nothing and they all know it, and the consequences of it. This wouldn't be such a big deal, as it's actually pretty accurate to how a bunch of barely of-age teens would be when given such a monumental task.
What undermines this is how quickly they find and destroy the other Horcruxes. The camping stuff is not a major part of the film, most of what we see is them interacting; the initial healing of Ron and their struggles to remain hidden, then after a relatively brief montage of them surviving as they can, we get to moments that push the plot forward as well as their moving around across England, Godric's Hollow and so on.
>>42875I can only interpret it as Ron being an unreliable twat. I mean what else is he going to do, searching for the Horcruxes is literally the most important possible task. Always disliked him honestly. I'm Harrymionie til I die. I don't even remember why they suddenly started finding Horcruxes after he left.
I get that it being aimless is the point but as a story that's boring and unsatisfying. I've already been on enough shitty English camping holidays that seemed neverending, that's not what I read/watch fiction for.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls003814436/The last movie is the highest rated on IMDB and the second-last one of the highest rated, if you look at the reviews you can see people express that view I stated.
>>42876 >unreliable twatExcept he's not especially in the context of the scene, since despite being significantly injured (severe hypothermia, starvation, crippling injury etc.) he's still with Harry. Harry is the one projecting his fears of abandonment onto Ron. Ron was pretty much always there for Harry and never hesitated to stand up against threats and dangers no matter how scared he might have been.
>I don't even remember why they suddenly started finding Horcruxes after he left They didn't. Ron left and then because of Hermione's wards couldn't find them despite basically trying to find them immediately after leaving, so he was searching for them for several weeks and came in for the save with the Sword of Gryffindor. Hell, he wanted to stay but Harry literally tells to him to leave repeatedly. Ron's biggest problem in the scene (and it's just realistic relative to such arguments) is that in his frustration and anger, he comes off a lot harsher and provokes a similar response from Harry, and Hermione in this instance was being an utter willow.
Also the movies cut out a lot of scenes and switched up dialogue that was important to Ron's character, resulting in him coming off as more of a prat than in the books.
IMDB is not a reliable source I'm going to be honest, primarily because the number of reviews and so on there are paltry compared to the sheer SIZE of the fandom itself. Almost everyone I knew hated it, even unreasonably so.
I agree that Ron/Hermione wasn't a very good pairing, but neither is Harry/Hermione.
Unique IPs: 19