Imagine being the 11-year-old that will be compared unfavorably to Daniel Radcliffe for years to come regardless of how well he does. Godspeed, Dominic McLaughlin. Godspeed.
Imagine being the 11-year-old that will be compared unfavorably to Daniel Radcliffe for years to come regardless of how well he does. Godspeed, Dominic McLaughlin. Godspeed.
It feels weird seeing an adaptation so similar to the original movies, like it’s intentionally trying not to have its own identity. I guess that makes sense when the wizard world is a billion...
It feels weird seeing an adaptation so similar to the original movies, like it’s intentionally trying not to have its own identity. I guess that makes sense when the wizard world is a billion dollar industry.
Yeah I don’t think this is an attempt to gain new fans so much as it is to appeal to the core millennial fanbase. The Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts films had the issue that their audience...
Yeah I don’t think this is an attempt to gain new fans so much as it is to appeal to the core millennial fanbase. The Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts films had the issue that their audience continued aging and never made any breakthroughs with younger generations. So really the best way to continue making money is to pander to their nostalgia.
I think the bigger issue was that the movies themselves were dogshit.
The Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts films had the issue that their audience continued aging and never made any breakthroughs with younger generations.
I think the bigger issue was that the movies themselves were dogshit.
I think even if the Fantastic Beasts films were good I don’t think that would change the demo of the audience. The last film the majority of the audience was females over 30 (or 25 rather but I...
I think even if the Fantastic Beasts films were good I don’t think that would change the demo of the audience. The last film the majority of the audience was females over 30 (or 25 rather but I would bet on over 30 making a bigger chunk of that).
One of the problems is that the Harry Potter books themselves didn’t really finish strong. The ending was serviceable but nothing that would have stood on its own if not for the decade of...
One of the problems is that the Harry Potter books themselves didn’t really finish strong. The ending was serviceable but nothing that would have stood on its own if not for the decade of investment from its fan base compelling them to see it through. So by the time it was done I think people were ready to put it on the shelf and say bye to the universe.
If the Fantastic Beasts series was really good it may have revived it, but by then Rowling was already terminally Twitter brained into doing weird retcons of her own mythos. I don’t quite remember the timeline on whether she had gone through making her dark pact with the ruinous powers yet, but she was well into becoming an aggro culture warrior and I think most normie-tier fans stopped caring enough to give her stuff a try by that point.
I think the trans stuff was more of a speculation by the time the second Fantastic Beasts thing came out. I remember several PR saves from her team, where they said her liking anti-Trans tweets...
I think the trans stuff was more of a speculation by the time the second Fantastic Beasts thing came out. I remember several PR saves from her team, where they said her liking anti-Trans tweets were a “senior moment.”
Really the biggest controversy surrounding Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald was Johnny Depp’s stuff with Amber Heard. But its drop off was mainly due to negative reception. The first Fantastic Beast was well received all around and even made 800M WW. Which showed the power of the fanbase.
I think that explains why the current fans abandoned the Fantastic Beasts films towards the end. I think there’s just a really cringe aura that clouds Harry Potter. Like a trope that gets made fun...
I think that explains why the current fans abandoned the Fantastic Beasts films towards the end.
I think there’s just a really cringe aura that clouds Harry Potter. Like a trope that gets made fun of on TikTok a lot is the millennial that speaks in like a baby voice and they’re always obsessed with Harry Potter. It’s gotten to the point that it’s embarrassing to like Harry Potter, more than any of the political controversy surrounding Rowling.
Yeah, that makes sense! It's interesting how that's come around. I grew up with Harry Potter; read all the books when they came out and generally liked it, but it wasn't cool or anything when I...
Yeah, that makes sense! It's interesting how that's come around. I grew up with Harry Potter; read all the books when they came out and generally liked it, but it wasn't cool or anything when I was an older teenager. I was quite surprised when I went to uni and everyone loved Harry Potter, to the point where it was almost a part of some people's identities. I just kind of went with it and tried not to yuck anyone's yum too much, but I get how the absolute obsession with it some people have feels weird to those that didn't grow up with it
Idk how common it is now but for a while, overly enthusiastic Harry Potter fans were often seen as pretty shallow by other readers. I'm not exactly sure what you would call it but there was a...
Idk how common it is now but for a while, overly enthusiastic Harry Potter fans were often seen as pretty shallow by other readers. I'm not exactly sure what you would call it but there was a stereotypical Harry Potter fan who seemed to have read no other books and saw everything through the lens of Harry Potter - https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/read-another-book
I think a lot of that got overshadowed once JKR really let loose with her transphobia.
Yeah, to me this screams "merch sales are down, time to pump the numbers up." There is absolutely nothing in the trailer that made me think this has a reason to exist. It is so visually similar to...
Yeah, to me this screams "merch sales are down, time to pump the numbers up."
There is absolutely nothing in the trailer that made me think this has a reason to exist. It is so visually similar to the original and most likely will adapt the story beat for beat.
I would also presume that too much break from characters would lead to backlash when a character looks different to how they imagine them in their head.
I would also presume that too much break from characters would lead to backlash when a character looks different to how they imagine them in their head.
I never got the Millennial obsession with Harry Potter anyway, and this is coming from someone who as a kid could literally finish a quote from any of the first 4 books just from hearing a few...
I never got the Millennial obsession with Harry Potter anyway, and this is coming from someone who as a kid could literally finish a quote from any of the first 4 books just from hearing a few words in the sentence (yeah... I was kinda a nerd.)
It's a fun story with great world building, but as I grew up I learned that there was so much more out there, and to be frank, so many books that just do it far better. Even if it wasn't a moral dilemma to keep investing so much time and money into this universe, I really don't think it deserves it.
Add on to that the issues with supporting JK financially and it just seems like a strange thing for people to gravitate towards.
I’m 43-year-old. I don’t know what to say, but Harry Potter is pretty cool :P I like the movies. I read the first book and it was very good. I genuinely think JK Rowling is cabable of writing...
I’m 43-year-old. I don’t know what to say, but Harry Potter is pretty cool :P
I like the movies. I read the first book and it was very good. I genuinely think JK Rowling is cabable of writing good, interesting books. I may read the other books eventually.
Harry Potter filled both the “stereotypical magic” and the “delightfully British” niches. That generation needed someone to take all the magic clichés and present them in a nice package.
Part of it is an issue that millennial readers never really “grew up.” Like YA and romance novels are such a big market because that’s the type of stuff these readers want and they don’t want to...
Part of it is an issue that millennial readers never really “grew up.” Like YA and romance novels are such a big market because that’s the type of stuff these readers want and they don’t want to venture out into more literary territory.
I liked Harry Potter as a kid because it was one of the only book series I actually enjoyed reading. Maybe it's because they are childrens books, and Rowling's writing style is simple and easy to...
I liked Harry Potter as a kid because it was one of the only book series I actually enjoyed reading. Maybe it's because they are childrens books, and Rowling's writing style is simple and easy to read. Or maybe I enjoyed the setting or worldbuilding or something.
Really, the main point is that throughout my childhood this set of books probably comprised over half the literature I actually read all the way through by choice, and as a result i have more nostalgia for it than other things. It reminds me of a simpler time in my life.
Plus, the Eragon franchise hasnt really maintained the same cultural relevance years later.
I really don't get why Imane Khelif has drawn so much controversy when it is very plausible that a medical condition that gives her high levels of testosterone got her flagged on IBA testing,...
I really don't get why Imane Khelif has drawn so much controversy when it is very plausible that a medical condition that gives her high levels of testosterone got her flagged on IBA testing, contrary to the right-wing belief that she transitioned.
Do you think a trans athlete would be born in and represent a predominantly Muslim nation with harsh anti-LGBTQ laws like Algeria?
She has stated that she's willing to undergo genetic testing for the 2028 Olympics if the IOC does it, and that's probably because she doesn't trust the IBA or its competitor. I feel like the outcome of that is going to make JK Rowling look incredibly stupid.
Well, it’s an interesting case that really goes to definitions. What is a woman, not socially, but with respect to sport eligibility? And if you take the genetic perspective, she has a Y...
Well, it’s an interesting case that really goes to definitions. What is a woman, not socially, but with respect to sport eligibility?
And if you take the genetic perspective, she has a Y chromosome. That’s not really in dispute. There’s a fairly compelling argument that this provides an unreasonable advantage over women who only have X chromosomes, even with testosterone reducing drugs.
On the other hand, if you take the phenotypic perspective, she is and has always looked like and believed herself to be a woman because of that SRY gene.
And then, there’s the argument that even genetically speaking, one could consider the combination of a Y chromosome and an SRY gene to be another form of being genetically female. Under that view, the advantage conferred by her Y chromosome is simply part of the diversity of human genotypes and is not different than other gene variants that occur disproportionately in elite athletes, for example ACTN3-R577X, ACE, PPARA, PPARGC1A, AMPD1, and NOS3.
"I have female hormones. And people don't know this, but I have taken hormone treatments to lower my testosterone levels for competitions," the 26-year-old Algerian said in the interview published on Wednesday, February 4. Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity. "Yes, and it's natural," she said, adding that she is "surrounded by doctors, a professor is monitoring me... For the Paris Games qualifying tournament, which took place in Dakar, I lowered my testosterone levels to zero".
I’ve reached the point in my mind where I can’t separate Harry Potter from Rowling’s transphobia. As a trans woman myself, and with a kid who is almost certainly going to end up coming out as...
I’ve reached the point in my mind where I can’t separate Harry Potter from Rowling’s transphobia. As a trans woman myself, and with a kid who is almost certainly going to end up coming out as binary trans, I won’t even be pirating it. The sooner this shit fades to obscurity (yeah right) the better.
I don't think that's good enough. Contributing to the potter-verse's cultural cachet is still causing a problem. It's time to let the IP die and Rowling's cultural significance with it.
I don't think that's good enough. Contributing to the potter-verse's cultural cachet is still causing a problem. It's time to let the IP die and Rowling's cultural significance with it.
Yeah, I'll never understand the piracy argument. You're still pushing the product into the zeitgeist by participating. In cases like this, there's a binary choice to participate or not. It doesn't...
Yeah, I'll never understand the piracy argument. You're still pushing the product into the zeitgeist by participating. In cases like this, there's a binary choice to participate or not. It doesn't matter if you steal your neighbor's mother's HBO account to watch the show or use binoculars.
It's pretty clear that piracy is good for culture as a whole, and a product that's not even fully started to be digested by consumerism, it's pretty useful for capitalism too (even if they're publicly shitting themselves when it comes to the subject, but greed's got to be greedy).
Fair enough, it looks like shit. I don’t think watching or not watching pirated Harry Potter is going to make a difference. Keeping the next generation of kids from watching it feels like a more...
Fair enough, it looks like shit. I don’t think watching or not watching pirated Harry Potter is going to make a difference. Keeping the next generation of kids from watching it feels like a more tangible impact.
How does that work? I’m guessing HBO subscribers pay the same for their subscription whether they watch it or not? And since there are a lot of other expenses when making a TV show, like paying...
How does that work? I’m guessing HBO subscribers pay the same for their subscription whether they watch it or not? And since there are a lot of other expenses when making a TV show, like paying the actors and writers and the army of other people who are needed, how much of that would go to Rawling?
JKRowling considers the popularity of her works and the money she's paid for it to be an endorsement of her beliefs. What she's doing is leading to the harassment and legal discrimination against...
Exemplary
JKRowling considers the popularity of her works and the money she's paid for it to be an endorsement of her beliefs.
What she's doing is leading to the harassment and legal discrimination against trans people at a minimum.
Subscribers can make a choice not to. People can choose not to watch which will determine what shows are renewed. People can choose not to buy merch, go to the theme park, etc.
Rawling can believe what she wants, no matter how insane, but it doesn’t make it true that people who buy Harry Potter stuff endorse whatever else Rawling believes. And even if the TV show is a...
Exemplary
Rawling can believe what she wants, no matter how insane, but it doesn’t make it true that people who buy Harry Potter stuff endorse whatever else Rawling believes. And even if the TV show is a flop, that seems unlikely to have much effect on her?
You can make your own choices, but I think it’s mostly for personal satisfaction.
I mean you can just say "virtue signaling" if that is what you think instead of couching it as "personal satisfaction". But I live in a world where morals and principles matter. And if you give...
Exemplary
I mean you can just say "virtue signaling" if that is what you think instead of couching it as "personal satisfaction". But I live in a world where morals and principles matter. And if you give her money she hurts trans people with it, every single day. She literally harasses people daily.
I mean have personal ethics and standards on the dignity of trans people, or not, I'm not anyone's mom. But frankly, I am over the "it doesn't really matter" arguments. We can see exactly how much her hatred has mattered over the past decade. There are other sources of magic and whimsy that don't explicitly fund hate.
Oh and Fuck TERFs and transphobes and every wishy washy "ally" who thinks trans people demand too much. You know, just on principle.
ETA: and I went and checked the comments, HP fandom being super racist about a Black actor playing Snape was absolutely predictable.
They may indeed. I am also not a psychic. But when folks consider acting on those beliefs to be only about personal satisfaction, it implies a lack of importance assigned to such things. Only each...
They may indeed. I am also not a psychic. But when folks consider acting on those beliefs to be only about personal satisfaction, it implies a lack of importance assigned to such things.
Only each person can answer that for themselves so both of us talking about a third person is pointless.
I mean sure if you want to stretch the implication there because you don't like the literalness of the turn of phrase, fine. You can dislike the words. But if I break it down... I think stating...
I mean sure if you want to stretch the implication there because you don't like the literalness of the turn of phrase, fine. You can dislike the words. But if I break it down...
I think stating that it's "mostly for personal satisfaction" is basically complaining about virtue signaling and implying that acting on one's morals is pointless at best and disingenuousness and dishonest at worst.
Given that, I think saying that morals and acting on them matter is relevant and on topic. The only part then that is exaggerated is implying I live in a different world than the previous poster, and I would hope we all know that is a non-literal overstatement to make a point.
Money spent on Harry Potter goes into her pockets, which she in turn funnels into her hate groups. It's a very simple pipeline. Giving money to Rowling openly and directly supports her bigotry....
Money spent on Harry Potter goes into her pockets, which she in turn funnels into her hate groups. It's a very simple pipeline. Giving money to Rowling openly and directly supports her bigotry. She's right to consider it an endorsement of what she does.
Precisely. She takes the money and explicitly spends it on hurting trans people. Spending money on it put pennies in her pocket that she'll spend elsewhere. One can argue that it doesn't matter...
Precisely. She takes the money and explicitly spends it on hurting trans people. Spending money on it put pennies in her pocket that she'll spend elsewhere.
One can argue that it doesn't matter that much proportionally, and I'd just say stand for fucking something, or don't, but don't pretend to.
If you watch the show on HBO they know and it tracks the views which will contribute to the future seasons and payouts for people involved. It's up to individuals what they want to do with that...
If you watch the show on HBO they know and it tracks the views which will contribute to the future seasons and payouts for people involved. It's up to individuals what they want to do with that information.
Cool, you can pay for HBO and not support transhate directly then, it sounds like. Kinda feels like that wouldn't be the case with the information and POVs presented here ... But I suspect saying...
Cool, you can pay for HBO and not support transhate directly then, it sounds like.
Kinda feels like that wouldn't be the case with the information and POVs presented here ... But I suspect saying any subscription to any company that distributes art derived from an artist that has problematic views would be a rather messy slope.
So it's probably just easier to say you can still have an HBO subscription but just not watch the artist in question.
Really does feel like problematic gymnastics. Why not just say paying for an HBO subscription is supportive of transhate at a percentage basis?
If gymnastics exist, I'd say this is quite a bit of gymnastics on your part to disagree with something I never said.
Cool, you can pay for HBO and not support transhate directly then, it sounds like.
Kinda feels like that wouldn't be the case with the information and POVs presented here ... But I suspect saying any subscription to any company that distributes art derived from an artist that has problematic views would be a rather messy slope.
So it's probably just easier to say you can still have an HBO subscription but just not watch the artist in question.
Really does feel like problematic gymnastics. Why not just say paying for an HBO subscription is supportive of transhate at a percentage basis?
Edit: phrasing on one sentence.
If gymnastics exist, I'd say this is quite a bit of gymnastics on your part to disagree with something I never said.
Considering you hopped on a reply to my reply to someone else that decided to not address skybrian's question in their reply about HBO subscriptions, I think we can call a spade a spade. Indeed, I...
Considering you hopped on a reply to my reply to someone else that decided to not address skybrian's question in their reply about HBO subscriptions, I think we can call a spade a spade. Indeed, I was not directly referring to exclusively your words. I was referring to the words throughout the thread leading to my comment!
I've noticed your comments are gradually pushing me away from wanting to participate in this small community. It's maybe the second or third time at this point. I am sad about that.
And if we go back up above that, the question wasn't really about an HBO subscription ever, it was about watching the show. Skybrian brought in the idea of a subscription and no one ever said not...
And if we go back up above that, the question wasn't really about an HBO subscription ever, it was about watching the show. Skybrian brought in the idea of a subscription and no one ever said not to subscribe in response or before that. Watching it still financially contributes to her by virtue of how TV renewals and views work as noted by multiple responses.
I've noticed your comments are gradually pushing me away from wanting to participate in this small community. It's maybe the second or third time at this point. I am sad about that.
What do you want me to do with this information? I'm sorry you're sad but this is my small community too. And if I push back at all here, because comments like this are hurtful, then I'm just confirming my status as the villain.
乁( •_• )ㄏ
I wish you no ill will but I also have no idea what past interactions we've had.
The root of this whole chain had to do with "people watching these shows", meaning Harry Potter specifically. The entire root of this conversation is focused specifically on Harry Potter, and not...
The root of this whole chain had to do with "people watching these shows", meaning Harry Potter specifically.
The entire root of this conversation is focused specifically on Harry Potter, and not generally on HBO. Even skybrian's original question for clarity was asking about how much actually goes to Nazi McBigot versus HBO.
You can say it's simple and maybe it is symbolically, but I was asking about the financial connection, and nobody seems to know the answer. Saying it's simple or direct doesn't mean it necessarily...
You can say it's simple and maybe it is symbolically, but I was asking about the financial connection, and nobody seems to know the answer. Saying it's simple or direct doesn't mean it necessarily is.
This is just a guess, but it seems likely that by now she makes plenty from other investments that have nothing to do with the Harry Potter franchise? Any good financial advisor would recommend investing profits in a diversified portfolio. So that's potentially another level of indirection, which likely means the funding for whatever hate groups she wants to fund doesn't have much to do with the success of the TV show, unfortunately.
Doesn't have to be. The simplest way (far simpler than what rich people actually do) would have been to put her book royalties over the years into an index fund, and then the index fund makes...
Doesn't have to be. The simplest way (far simpler than what rich people actually do) would have been to put her book royalties over the years into an index fund, and then the index fund makes money like any other investment, even if the original source of funding is gone. Once people are wealthy enough, they don't need to own a business directly.
There's a New York Times article from 2016 that estimated that she was a billionaire then, and the S&P 500 has tripled since then.
From a brief search, though, she's reportedly still earning hundreds of millions from royalties, on top of whatever investments she has.
Financially, this is pretty much untouchable no matter what happens.
If they watch it legitimately it incentivizes HBO to invest in sequels. HBO is going to make content either way, if you are politically inclined on this issue it would make some sense to signal...
If they watch it legitimately it incentivizes HBO to invest in sequels. HBO is going to make content either way, if you are politically inclined on this issue it would make some sense to signal HBO to invest in different projects.
Cool, so, anyone who pays for HBO subscription actively contributing monetarily to anti-trans hate. Also Amazon Prime and Apple TV @ix-ix, do you agree?
Cool, so, anyone who pays for HBO subscription actively contributing monetarily to anti-trans hate. Also Amazon Prime and Apple TV
I should have made myself clearer. My issue is with the Exemplary label, which Deimos often removes when it is just a regular comment someone labeled as such. There is absolutely nothing malicious...
I should have made myself clearer. My issue is with the Exemplary label, which Deimos often removes when it is just a regular comment someone labeled as such. There is absolutely nothing malicious in the actual comment.
Oh I gave the label, because I think it's quite brave to step up and say the thing first, as it's what I would have posted, probably much more long windedly and I think it's an absolutely...
Oh I gave the label, because I think it's quite brave to step up and say the thing first, as it's what I would have posted, probably much more long windedly and I think it's an absolutely necessary perspective to the discussion. I also think it's down labeling, whatever it is, is far more inappropriate as it's neither off topic nor a joke nor noise.
It was probably the politest way to make the point. And I tagged it for being succinct, important and necessary.
IMO JK Rowling is a truly horrible person, and I wish she would just disappear, and people would stop supporting her (even indirectly by watching this show). However, despite my feeling that way...
IMO JK Rowling is a truly horrible person, and I wish she would just disappear, and people would stop supporting her (even indirectly by watching this show). However, despite my feeling that way about her and being glad that JXM brought the subject up, their comment is still pretty much the textbook definition of off-topic since it's not actually about the trailer or the HBO Harry Potter series.
I agree with regards to JK Rowling - what she does and says is awful. But it's also not something that just happened recently. So it's just getting exhausting that whenever Harry Potter comes up...
I agree with regards to JK Rowling - what she does and says is awful. But it's also not something that just happened recently. So it's just getting exhausting that whenever Harry Potter comes up because there's some new content, the conversation is immediately burried in the same talking points about rowling's bigotry that have been already been posted the last two times something about Harry Potter came up. There is a place for people to discuss what Rowling says and does, but there should also be a place for people to discuss the content of Harry Potter books/series/movies.
Much the same it is very well possible to still like Harry Potter content and hate Rowling's actions/comments. I really dislike how some people act as if there's some moral obligation to suddenly hate anything that's been published by Rowling in the past now that she's started to publicly propagate anti-trans bs. If Harry Potter were a problematic text in itself that would be a different story, but that's not the argument being made at all. Erasing anything someone said or wrote once they fall out of favor and shaming people for interacting with it may be something that's common in totalitarian regimes, but in my ideal world that's not how things should work.
Anyway, if Rowling says something new that's despicable and awful, please post and discuss it, but please also accept that there can be discussion about Harry Potter content wise that doesn't necessarily need to include a discussion about the author's latest actions. Once the series comes out I really hope that we can somehow have the rowling discussions without reposting the same thing under every single post discussing the latest episode's content.
I do not believe the conversation would be better received if we talked about the problems with the material. Which fwiw the books are problematic in a lot of ways. People just don't feel like...
I do not believe the conversation would be better received if we talked about the problems with the material. Which fwiw the books are problematic in a lot of ways. People just don't feel like rehashing that argument decades on, because that hasn't changed and JKR continues to do active harm today.
For example, Harry Potter is pretty grossly fatphobic, uses a lot of stereotypes in its non-white characters and non-human species, and the use of lycanthropy an analogy for a social stigma such as being HIV positive sounds one way when discussing sad boy Lupin and another when discussing the violent murderer intent on infecting as many people as possible. The person opposing slavery is called ridiculous and exhausting by literally everyone else in the narrative, not just the bad guys.
I could go on, but I suspect, and I mean this genuinely, that this would not be better received in an episode discussion every week. If you look at the YouTube comments they're pretty awful about the casting of a Black man to play Snape, would that - fandom response to the new show - be an acceptable topic of discussion? And near daily she's tweeting and retweeting new horrible things. Is that new material valid discussion? This month she shared a post that calls "trans women are women" a "propagandic lie" and since then Girl Guides have just told trans girls they can't be scouts anymore. That's almost certainly not a direct casual relationship, but her rhetoric is part of the cause for that, for Kansas revoking the driver's licenses, for the portrayal of trans people as inherently liars who can't be trusted.
I'm not saying this out of any aggression, disdain, or expectation that you engage on the specifics here. I'm saying I think comments about any of this as applicable to the new show would be given just as much of a "ugh why are you bringing this up again" response. Meanwhile people are being hurt by the creator of a world and our "friends" and acquaintances are throwing money at her. If she was online talking about how miscegenation laws were right, that there's a natural order of the races and that to keep white women safe, Black people should be registered and tracked and imprisoned for simply being a threat... I don't think we'd be having this conversation. But because trans women specifically and trans people in general are her preferred victims - although she has targeted asexuals and other queer people as well - that society allows her to continue and fans of her work want the people hurt by her to shut up and go away and stop being so annoying about how shitty of a person she is.
You disagree about moral obligation to dislike past works, that's fine. But you're presenting your opinion that it's not an obligation as fact while dismissing those who think supporting her new TV series is a bad thing as "acting". And I don't think that's fair either. To only care about a "totalitarian regime" against her, but not her targets seems outright unjust.
I think calling JK Rowling's roaring bigotry, and her claims that Harry Potter profits are being used to directly fund her bigotry, are absolutely on topic. I think avoiding this sort of...
I think calling JK Rowling's roaring bigotry, and her claims that Harry Potter profits are being used to directly fund her bigotry, are absolutely on topic. I think avoiding this sort of uncomfortable truth is what allows this kind of bigotry to thrive.
Nobody is advocating for totally avoiding discussing JK's bigotry. It's not being censored. It hasn't been removed. It's simply being sorted below the comments focused on the actual subject of...
Nobody is advocating for totally avoiding discussing JK's bigotry. It's not being censored. It hasn't been removed. It's simply being sorted below the comments focused on the actual subject of this topic, which is the HBO trailer and show.
Okay. And I think it is, and clearly so did a few other people since the offtopic label doesn't have any effect if only one person applies it. So agree to disagree, I guess. But feel free to...
Okay. And I think it is, and clearly so did a few other people since the offtopic label doesn't have any effect if only one person applies it. So agree to disagree, I guess. But feel free to report it to Deimos if you disagree strongly enough and believe the label has been misapplied.
You can still use the malice label and just write in the message something like "I don't actually think this is malicious but it isn't exemplary either". I've done that before and, while Deimos...
You can still use the malice label and just write in the message something like "I don't actually think this is malicious but it isn't exemplary either". I've done that before and, while Deimos has never told me it's okay, he's never told me to stop doing it either :)
It's ok in that it's a heads up for Deimos without pinging him. I similarly have not had issues with it when I've tried to explain it's complicated. Though personally I'm glad I got to articulate...
It's ok in that it's a heads up for Deimos without pinging him. I similarly have not had issues with it when I've tried to explain it's complicated.
Though personally I'm glad I got to articulate for @JXM in more depth than my simple and heartfelt thank you in the exemplary tag. Which I couldn't have without the comment and clarification
I'm not sure how you could actually think that, unless you don't understand how the malice label works. Let me break that down for you: When you label a comment with the malice label, you have to...
I'm not sure how you could actually think that, unless you don't understand how the malice label works. Let me break that down for you:
When you label a comment with the malice label, you have to write and submit a message before the label is actually applied (just like with the exemplary label). Once you write that message and apply the label, Deimos receives a notification of the malice label's usage and your message along with it. Deimos then reads the notification and your message, and acts accordingly.
The malice label does not apply any sort of penalty to the comment it was used on, unlike the joke, offtopic, or noise labels. The malice label's only immediate effect is to notify Deimos of a problem.[1]
1. At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case. If it's not the case, and the malice label actually does apply some sort of rank penalty to the comment, then tough titties. Think of it, in the context of its use for an inappropriately used exemplary label, as an offset of that inappropriate usage ;)
I understand the mechanics, but apparently not the contemporary usage. Based solely on how you've explained how you use it here, and based on the exact rules for its usage in the link you...
I understand the mechanics, but apparently not the contemporary usage. Based solely on how you've explained how you use it here, and based on the exact rules for its usage in the link you provided, you would be misusing the label.
I think neither of us should speak authoritatively on its use at this point.
Okay sure, let's say the documentation I linked actually does constitute "exact rules" on how the malice label should be used, that I am misusing the label, and that Deimos wants me to stop...
Okay sure, let's say the documentation I linked actually does constitute "exact rules" on how the malice label should be used, that I am misusing the label, and that Deimos wants me to stop misusing the label that way.
Even then, how have I acted maliciously or in bad faith? Because for that to be the case would require malicious intent. I really don't understand how you can read such intent in my original comment, especially if you "understand the mechanics" of how the malice label works.
You know what, it's not important. Let me just say the important thing: when I use the malice label to report a comment that I think has been mislabeled as exemplary, but is not otherwise malicious, I don't believe I am acting maliciously or in bad faith.
You're labeling a post that is categorically not malicious, as malicious, just because you disagree with how others choose to approve of it. You're doing so in the hopes that Deimos will agree...
You're labeling a post that is categorically not malicious, as malicious, just because you disagree with how others choose to approve of it. You're doing so in the hopes that Deimos will agree with you, and in so doing that he would remove others' choice in showing the fashion in which they approve.
I think that this objection applies regardless of whether you notify Deimos by pinging him or through the existing malice label, though. If anything, pinging Deimos explicitly is more manipulative...
I think that this objection applies regardless of whether you notify Deimos by pinging him or through the existing malice label, though. If anything, pinging Deimos explicitly is more manipulative as it makes the attempt to pressure Deimos into changing someone else's label based on your opinion a public affair.
The malice label doesn't mean that the post your labeling is necessarily itself malicious in practice. I've used it on posts at the tops of threads that seem to be getting heated before, because I want to draw Deimos's attention to the whole thread in case things escalate, for instance. Deimos can also remove your ability to use certain labels if you misuse them, so there's not really a concrete worry that someone would repeatedly misuse the label in a way that hinders Deimos or the site.
Imagine being the 11-year-old that will be compared unfavorably to Daniel Radcliffe for years to come regardless of how well he does. Godspeed, Dominic McLaughlin. Godspeed.
It feels weird seeing an adaptation so similar to the original movies, like it’s intentionally trying not to have its own identity. I guess that makes sense when the wizard world is a billion dollar industry.
I don’t know anything about it but I saw a post that said they are using same visual design so they can keep selling the same merch.
Yeah I don’t think this is an attempt to gain new fans so much as it is to appeal to the core millennial fanbase. The Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts films had the issue that their audience continued aging and never made any breakthroughs with younger generations. So really the best way to continue making money is to pander to their nostalgia.
I think the bigger issue was that the movies themselves were dogshit.
I think even if the Fantastic Beasts films were good I don’t think that would change the demo of the audience. The last film the majority of the audience was females over 30 (or 25 rather but I would bet on over 30 making a bigger chunk of that).
One of the problems is that the Harry Potter books themselves didn’t really finish strong. The ending was serviceable but nothing that would have stood on its own if not for the decade of investment from its fan base compelling them to see it through. So by the time it was done I think people were ready to put it on the shelf and say bye to the universe.
If the Fantastic Beasts series was really good it may have revived it, but by then Rowling was already terminally Twitter brained into doing weird retcons of her own mythos. I don’t quite remember the timeline on whether she had gone through making her dark pact with the ruinous powers yet, but she was well into becoming an aggro culture warrior and I think most normie-tier fans stopped caring enough to give her stuff a try by that point.
I think the trans stuff was more of a speculation by the time the second Fantastic Beasts thing came out. I remember several PR saves from her team, where they said her liking anti-Trans tweets were a “senior moment.”
Really the biggest controversy surrounding Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald was Johnny Depp’s stuff with Amber Heard. But its drop off was mainly due to negative reception. The first Fantastic Beast was well received all around and even made 800M WW. Which showed the power of the fanbase.
I think that might be more with not telling a compelling story - from what I heard - than from new people just not getting into them?
I think that explains why the current fans abandoned the Fantastic Beasts films towards the end.
I think there’s just a really cringe aura that clouds Harry Potter. Like a trope that gets made fun of on TikTok a lot is the millennial that speaks in like a baby voice and they’re always obsessed with Harry Potter. It’s gotten to the point that it’s embarrassing to like Harry Potter, more than any of the political controversy surrounding Rowling.
Yeah, that makes sense! It's interesting how that's come around. I grew up with Harry Potter; read all the books when they came out and generally liked it, but it wasn't cool or anything when I was an older teenager. I was quite surprised when I went to uni and everyone loved Harry Potter, to the point where it was almost a part of some people's identities. I just kind of went with it and tried not to yuck anyone's yum too much, but I get how the absolute obsession with it some people have feels weird to those that didn't grow up with it
Idk how common it is now but for a while, overly enthusiastic Harry Potter fans were often seen as pretty shallow by other readers. I'm not exactly sure what you would call it but there was a stereotypical Harry Potter fan who seemed to have read no other books and saw everything through the lens of Harry Potter - https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/read-another-book
I think a lot of that got overshadowed once JKR really let loose with her transphobia.
It’s a similar situation to Disney adults.
Yeah, to me this screams "merch sales are down, time to pump the numbers up."
There is absolutely nothing in the trailer that made me think this has a reason to exist. It is so visually similar to the original and most likely will adapt the story beat for beat.
I would also presume that too much break from characters would lead to backlash when a character looks different to how they imagine them in their head.
I’ll leave this here as a reminder and then let everyone get on talking about the wizards.
I never got the Millennial obsession with Harry Potter anyway, and this is coming from someone who as a kid could literally finish a quote from any of the first 4 books just from hearing a few words in the sentence (yeah... I was kinda a nerd.)
It's a fun story with great world building, but as I grew up I learned that there was so much more out there, and to be frank, so many books that just do it far better. Even if it wasn't a moral dilemma to keep investing so much time and money into this universe, I really don't think it deserves it.
Add on to that the issues with supporting JK financially and it just seems like a strange thing for people to gravitate towards.
I’m 43-year-old. I don’t know what to say, but Harry Potter is pretty cool :P
I like the movies. I read the first book and it was very good. I genuinely think JK Rowling is cabable of writing good, interesting books. I may read the other books eventually.
Harry Potter filled both the “stereotypical magic” and the “delightfully British” niches. That generation needed someone to take all the magic clichés and present them in a nice package.
Part of it is an issue that millennial readers never really “grew up.” Like YA and romance novels are such a big market because that’s the type of stuff these readers want and they don’t want to venture out into more literary territory.
I liked Harry Potter as a kid because it was one of the only book series I actually enjoyed reading. Maybe it's because they are childrens books, and Rowling's writing style is simple and easy to read. Or maybe I enjoyed the setting or worldbuilding or something.
Really, the main point is that throughout my childhood this set of books probably comprised over half the literature I actually read all the way through by choice, and as a result i have more nostalgia for it than other things. It reminds me of a simpler time in my life.
Plus, the Eragon franchise hasnt really maintained the same cultural relevance years later.
I'll also piggyback off this with Contrapoint's video: JK Rowling
I really don't get why Imane Khelif has drawn so much controversy when it is very plausible that a medical condition that gives her high levels of testosterone got her flagged on IBA testing, contrary to the right-wing belief that she transitioned.
Do you think a trans athlete would be born in and represent a predominantly Muslim nation with harsh anti-LGBTQ laws like Algeria?
She has stated that she's willing to undergo genetic testing for the 2028 Olympics if the IOC does it, and that's probably because she doesn't trust the IBA or its competitor. I feel like the outcome of that is going to make JK Rowling look incredibly stupid.
Well, it’s an interesting case that really goes to definitions. What is a woman, not socially, but with respect to sport eligibility?
And if you take the genetic perspective, she has a Y chromosome. That’s not really in dispute. There’s a fairly compelling argument that this provides an unreasonable advantage over women who only have X chromosomes, even with testosterone reducing drugs.
On the other hand, if you take the phenotypic perspective, she is and has always looked like and believed herself to be a woman because of that SRY gene.
And then, there’s the argument that even genetically speaking, one could consider the combination of a Y chromosome and an SRY gene to be another form of being genetically female. Under that view, the advantage conferred by her Y chromosome is simply part of the diversity of human genotypes and is not different than other gene variants that occur disproportionately in elite athletes, for example ACTN3-R577X, ACE, PPARA, PPARGC1A, AMPD1, and NOS3.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sports/article/2026/02/05/boxer-imane-khelif-reveals-she-took-hormone-treatment-before-paris-olympics_6750171_9.html
Anyone watching these shows are actively contributing monetarily to anti-trans hate.
Piracy is easier than ever too. Just steal it.
I’ve reached the point in my mind where I can’t separate Harry Potter from Rowling’s transphobia. As a trans woman myself, and with a kid who is almost certainly going to end up coming out as binary trans, I won’t even be pirating it. The sooner this shit fades to obscurity (yeah right) the better.
I don't think that's good enough. Contributing to the potter-verse's cultural cachet is still causing a problem. It's time to let the IP die and Rowling's cultural significance with it.
Yeah, I'll never understand the piracy argument. You're still pushing the product into the zeitgeist by participating. In cases like this, there's a binary choice to participate or not. It doesn't matter if you steal your neighbor's mother's HBO account to watch the show or use binoculars.
It's pretty clear that piracy is good for culture as a whole, and a product that's not even fully started to be digested by consumerism, it's pretty useful for capitalism too (even if they're publicly shitting themselves when it comes to the subject, but greed's got to be greedy).
Fair enough, it looks like shit. I don’t think watching or not watching pirated Harry Potter is going to make a difference. Keeping the next generation of kids from watching it feels like a more tangible impact.
How does that work? I’m guessing HBO subscribers pay the same for their subscription whether they watch it or not? And since there are a lot of other expenses when making a TV show, like paying the actors and writers and the army of other people who are needed, how much of that would go to Rawling?
JKRowling considers the popularity of her works and the money she's paid for it to be an endorsement of her beliefs.
What she's doing is leading to the harassment and legal discrimination against trans people at a minimum.
Subscribers can make a choice not to. People can choose not to watch which will determine what shows are renewed. People can choose not to buy merch, go to the theme park, etc.
Rawling can believe what she wants, no matter how insane, but it doesn’t make it true that people who buy Harry Potter stuff endorse whatever else Rawling believes. And even if the TV show is a flop, that seems unlikely to have much effect on her?
You can make your own choices, but I think it’s mostly for personal satisfaction.
I mean you can just say "virtue signaling" if that is what you think instead of couching it as "personal satisfaction". But I live in a world where morals and principles matter. And if you give her money she hurts trans people with it, every single day. She literally harasses people daily.
I mean have personal ethics and standards on the dignity of trans people, or not, I'm not anyone's mom. But frankly, I am over the "it doesn't really matter" arguments. We can see exactly how much her hatred has mattered over the past decade. There are other sources of magic and whimsy that don't explicitly fund hate.
Oh and Fuck TERFs and transphobes and every wishy washy "ally" who thinks trans people demand too much. You know, just on principle.
ETA: and I went and checked the comments, HP fandom being super racist about a Black actor playing Snape was absolutely predictable.
I’m pretty sure they also live in a world like that.
They may indeed. I am also not a psychic. But when folks consider acting on those beliefs to be only about personal satisfaction, it implies a lack of importance assigned to such things.
Only each person can answer that for themselves so both of us talking about a third person is pointless.
My point is basically every has morals and principles and it’s kind of offside to imply that they don’t.
I mean sure if you want to stretch the implication there because you don't like the literalness of the turn of phrase, fine. You can dislike the words. But if I break it down...
I think stating that it's "mostly for personal satisfaction" is basically complaining about virtue signaling and implying that acting on one's morals is pointless at best and disingenuousness and dishonest at worst.
Given that, I think saying that morals and acting on them matter is relevant and on topic. The only part then that is exaggerated is implying I live in a different world than the previous poster, and I would hope we all know that is a non-literal overstatement to make a point.
Money spent on Harry Potter goes into her pockets, which she in turn funnels into her hate groups. It's a very simple pipeline. Giving money to Rowling openly and directly supports her bigotry. She's right to consider it an endorsement of what she does.
Precisely. She takes the money and explicitly spends it on hurting trans people. Spending money on it put pennies in her pocket that she'll spend elsewhere.
One can argue that it doesn't matter that much proportionally, and I'd just say stand for fucking something, or don't, but don't pretend to.
But the question was about an HBO subscription. And it's a valid point that ought to be grappled with.
If you watch the show on HBO they know and it tracks the views which will contribute to the future seasons and payouts for people involved. It's up to individuals what they want to do with that information.
Cool, you can pay for HBO and not support transhate directly then, it sounds like.
Kinda feels like that wouldn't be the case with the information and POVs presented here ... But I suspect saying any subscription to any company that distributes art derived from an artist that has problematic views would be a rather messy slope.
So it's probably just easier to say you can still have an HBO subscription but just not watch the artist in question.
Really does feel like problematic gymnastics. Why not just say paying for an HBO subscription is supportive of transhate at a percentage basis?
Edit: phrasing on one sentence.
If gymnastics exist, I'd say this is quite a bit of gymnastics on your part to disagree with something I never said.
Considering you hopped on a reply to my reply to someone else that decided to not address skybrian's question in their reply about HBO subscriptions, I think we can call a spade a spade. Indeed, I was not directly referring to exclusively your words. I was referring to the words throughout the thread leading to my comment!
I've noticed your comments are gradually pushing me away from wanting to participate in this small community. It's maybe the second or third time at this point. I am sad about that.
And if we go back up above that, the question wasn't really about an HBO subscription ever, it was about watching the show. Skybrian brought in the idea of a subscription and no one ever said not to subscribe in response or before that. Watching it still financially contributes to her by virtue of how TV renewals and views work as noted by multiple responses.
What do you want me to do with this information? I'm sorry you're sad but this is my small community too. And if I push back at all here, because comments like this are hurtful, then I'm just confirming my status as the villain.
乁( •_• )ㄏ
I wish you no ill will but I also have no idea what past interactions we've had.
The root of this whole chain had to do with "people watching these shows", meaning Harry Potter specifically.
The entire root of this conversation is focused specifically on Harry Potter, and not generally on HBO. Even skybrian's original question for clarity was asking about how much actually goes to Nazi McBigot versus HBO.
You can say it's simple and maybe it is symbolically, but I was asking about the financial connection, and nobody seems to know the answer. Saying it's simple or direct doesn't mean it necessarily is.
This is just a guess, but it seems likely that by now she makes plenty from other investments that have nothing to do with the Harry Potter franchise? Any good financial advisor would recommend investing profits in a diversified portfolio. So that's potentially another level of indirection, which likely means the funding for whatever hate groups she wants to fund doesn't have much to do with the success of the TV show, unfortunately.
I think you overestimate how independent her finances are from Harry Potter. She's not wealthy from anything else.
Doesn't have to be. The simplest way (far simpler than what rich people actually do) would have been to put her book royalties over the years into an index fund, and then the index fund makes money like any other investment, even if the original source of funding is gone. Once people are wealthy enough, they don't need to own a business directly.
There's a New York Times article from 2016 that estimated that she was a billionaire then, and the S&P 500 has tripled since then.
From a brief search, though, she's reportedly still earning hundreds of millions from royalties, on top of whatever investments she has.
Financially, this is pretty much untouchable no matter what happens.
She may be untouchable but there is zero reason to add to her already unreasonable wealth.
If they watch it legitimately it incentivizes HBO to invest in sequels. HBO is going to make content either way, if you are politically inclined on this issue it would make some sense to signal HBO to invest in different projects.
Cool, so, anyone who pays for HBO subscription actively contributing monetarily to anti-trans hate. Also Amazon Prime and Apple TV
@ix-ix, do you agree?
@deimos.
You can tap the Malice button if you think there's an issue but why for this post? This is very much part of the conversation about Harry Potter.
I should have made myself clearer. My issue is with the
Exemplarylabel, which Deimos often removes when it is just a regular comment someone labeled as such. There is absolutely nothing malicious in the actual comment.Oh I gave the label, because I think it's quite brave to step up and say the thing first, as it's what I would have posted, probably much more long windedly and I think it's an absolutely necessary perspective to the discussion. I also think it's down labeling, whatever it is, is far more inappropriate as it's neither off topic nor a joke nor noise.
It was probably the politest way to make the point. And I tagged it for being succinct, important and necessary.
IMO JK Rowling is a truly horrible person, and I wish she would just disappear, and people would stop supporting her (even indirectly by watching this show). However, despite my feeling that way about her and being glad that JXM brought the subject up, their comment is still pretty much the textbook definition of off-topic since it's not actually about the trailer or the HBO Harry Potter series.
I disagree as I find it fundamental to the conversation about Harry Potter and consuming this specific media. But it, just like my tag, is my opinion.
I agree with regards to JK Rowling - what she does and says is awful. But it's also not something that just happened recently. So it's just getting exhausting that whenever Harry Potter comes up because there's some new content, the conversation is immediately burried in the same talking points about rowling's bigotry that have been already been posted the last two times something about Harry Potter came up. There is a place for people to discuss what Rowling says and does, but there should also be a place for people to discuss the content of Harry Potter books/series/movies.
Much the same it is very well possible to still like Harry Potter content and hate Rowling's actions/comments. I really dislike how some people act as if there's some moral obligation to suddenly hate anything that's been published by Rowling in the past now that she's started to publicly propagate anti-trans bs. If Harry Potter were a problematic text in itself that would be a different story, but that's not the argument being made at all. Erasing anything someone said or wrote once they fall out of favor and shaming people for interacting with it may be something that's common in totalitarian regimes, but in my ideal world that's not how things should work.
Anyway, if Rowling says something new that's despicable and awful, please post and discuss it, but please also accept that there can be discussion about Harry Potter content wise that doesn't necessarily need to include a discussion about the author's latest actions. Once the series comes out I really hope that we can somehow have the rowling discussions without reposting the same thing under every single post discussing the latest episode's content.
I do not believe the conversation would be better received if we talked about the problems with the material. Which fwiw the books are problematic in a lot of ways. People just don't feel like rehashing that argument decades on, because that hasn't changed and JKR continues to do active harm today.
For example, Harry Potter is pretty grossly fatphobic, uses a lot of stereotypes in its non-white characters and non-human species, and the use of lycanthropy an analogy for a social stigma such as being HIV positive sounds one way when discussing sad boy Lupin and another when discussing the violent murderer intent on infecting as many people as possible. The person opposing slavery is called ridiculous and exhausting by literally everyone else in the narrative, not just the bad guys.
I could go on, but I suspect, and I mean this genuinely, that this would not be better received in an episode discussion every week. If you look at the YouTube comments they're pretty awful about the casting of a Black man to play Snape, would that - fandom response to the new show - be an acceptable topic of discussion? And near daily she's tweeting and retweeting new horrible things. Is that new material valid discussion? This month she shared a post that calls "trans women are women" a "propagandic lie" and since then Girl Guides have just told trans girls they can't be scouts anymore. That's almost certainly not a direct casual relationship, but her rhetoric is part of the cause for that, for Kansas revoking the driver's licenses, for the portrayal of trans people as inherently liars who can't be trusted.
I'm not saying this out of any aggression, disdain, or expectation that you engage on the specifics here. I'm saying I think comments about any of this as applicable to the new show would be given just as much of a "ugh why are you bringing this up again" response. Meanwhile people are being hurt by the creator of a world and our "friends" and acquaintances are throwing money at her. If she was online talking about how miscegenation laws were right, that there's a natural order of the races and that to keep white women safe, Black people should be registered and tracked and imprisoned for simply being a threat... I don't think we'd be having this conversation. But because trans women specifically and trans people in general are her preferred victims - although she has targeted asexuals and other queer people as well - that society allows her to continue and fans of her work want the people hurt by her to shut up and go away and stop being so annoying about how shitty of a person she is.
You disagree about moral obligation to dislike past works, that's fine. But you're presenting your opinion that it's not an obligation as fact while dismissing those who think supporting her new TV series is a bad thing as "acting". And I don't think that's fair either. To only care about a "totalitarian regime" against her, but not her targets seems outright unjust.
I think calling JK Rowling's roaring bigotry, and her claims that Harry Potter profits are being used to directly fund her bigotry, are absolutely on topic. I think avoiding this sort of uncomfortable truth is what allows this kind of bigotry to thrive.
Nobody is advocating for totally avoiding discussing JK's bigotry. It's not being censored. It hasn't been removed. It's simply being sorted below the comments focused on the actual subject of this topic, which is the HBO trailer and show.
I disagree that it is off topic.
Okay. And I think it is, and clearly so did a few other people since the offtopic label doesn't have any effect if only one person applies it. So agree to disagree, I guess. But feel free to report it to Deimos if you disagree strongly enough and believe the label has been misapplied.
You can still use the malice label and just write in the message something like "I don't actually think this is malicious but it isn't exemplary either". I've done that before and, while Deimos has never told me it's okay, he's never told me to stop doing it either :)
That seems like a bad faith way of using the malice tag, in a way that is itself malicious.
It's ok in that it's a heads up for Deimos without pinging him. I similarly have not had issues with it when I've tried to explain it's complicated.
Though personally I'm glad I got to articulate for @JXM in more depth than my simple and heartfelt thank you in the exemplary tag. Which I couldn't have without the comment and clarification
I'm not sure how you could actually think that, unless you don't understand how the malice label works. Let me break that down for you:
When you label a comment with the malice label, you have to write and submit a message before the label is actually applied (just like with the exemplary label). Once you write that message and apply the label, Deimos receives a notification of the malice label's usage and your message along with it. Deimos then reads the notification and your message, and acts accordingly.
The malice label does not apply any sort of penalty to the comment it was used on, unlike the joke, offtopic, or noise labels. The malice label's only immediate effect is to notify Deimos of a problem.[1]
1. At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case. If it's not the case, and the malice label actually does apply some sort of rank penalty to the comment, then tough titties. Think of it, in the context of its use for an inappropriately used exemplary label, as an offset of that inappropriate usage ;)
I understand the mechanics, but apparently not the contemporary usage. Based solely on how you've explained how you use it here, and based on the exact rules for its usage in the link you provided, you would be misusing the label.
I think neither of us should speak authoritatively on its use at this point.
Okay sure, let's say the documentation I linked actually does constitute "exact rules" on how the malice label should be used, that I am misusing the label, and that Deimos wants me to stop misusing the label that way.
Even then, how have I acted maliciously or in bad faith? Because for that to be the case would require malicious intent. I really don't understand how you can read such intent in my original comment, especially if you "understand the mechanics" of how the malice label works.
You know what, it's not important. Let me just say the important thing: when I use the malice label to report a comment that I think has been mislabeled as exemplary, but is not otherwise malicious, I don't believe I am acting maliciously or in bad faith.
You're labeling a post that is categorically not malicious, as malicious, just because you disagree with how others choose to approve of it. You're doing so in the hopes that Deimos will agree with you, and in so doing that he would remove others' choice in showing the fashion in which they approve.
That, to me, is bad faith.
I think that this objection applies regardless of whether you notify Deimos by pinging him or through the existing malice label, though. If anything, pinging Deimos explicitly is more manipulative as it makes the attempt to pressure Deimos into changing someone else's label based on your opinion a public affair.
The malice label doesn't mean that the post your labeling is necessarily itself malicious in practice. I've used it on posts at the tops of threads that seem to be getting heated before, because I want to draw Deimos's attention to the whole thread in case things escalate, for instance. Deimos can also remove your ability to use certain labels if you misuse them, so there's not really a concrete worry that someone would repeatedly misuse the label in a way that hinders Deimos or the site.