Bonus video! F**K TERFs on Patreon.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/f-k-terfs-139628422?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

Man if I was as successful as Rowling I would vanish from public view and live my life

A technical complement: I can't believe how you manage to record these using multiple setups and costumes and then cut between them with no discernible change in volume, timbre, narration speed etc.

I think that Harry Potter very much represents the way the British think about WWII. They want to pat themselves on the back for defeating bigotry, but are totally unwilling to look inward and see the bigotry in their own society.

They also protected their own interests by fighting in that war, making their "defeat" of bigotry all the more hollow.

Tiny tidbit, but the reason brownies do chores and are offended by being paid for their work is that they aren't creatures who enjoy helping, but rather that they break into houses for shelter and food and are then compelled by their sense of guilt to do housework to make up for it. Paying them lets them know that you were never really offended by their theft and trespass, and instead saw it as a transaction. This makes them feel exploited.

This is why brownies were attracted by leaving food out in conspicuous locations indoors before you go to bed - they need to steal it from you for them to feel like they ought to do housework.

The werewolf registry is something I think about a lot. If werewolves are an AIDS allegory, it's concerning that they are required to have their names on a government list.

I remember being so confused by the resolution to the SPEW storyline being "Hermione's campaign to free the slaves was wrong, actually." I kept waiting for the actual ending to that plotline where everyone realizes that actually, Hermione was right... Never got it. That was about the time that I started falling off the books, though I still enjoyed the fannish output for quite a lot longer.

I was an overweight kid who read a lot of Harry potter. I have pretty severe body issues that may or may not be connected

About Tonks : the way they feel in the last books feels like they went through conversion therapy, not just "stopping from being genderqueer". They are depressed. Colorless.

what makes the house elves fail as an allusion to brownies is that brownies can leave if they dont feel sufficiently thanked (i think their mythology requires leaving a bowl of cream or milk by the hearth for them)
house elves are stuck whether they like it or not. like they're wired to be accepting in an abusive house and are unable to leave. brownies, by contrast, can and will fight back if they feel they are being taken advantage of. you aren't gifted with a free slave, you got stuck with a presumptuous night maid who demands compensation for a thing you didn't ask for and they might break your pipes or worse if you dont do it.
that's why we equate house elves to slavery and not brownies. most house spirits in real mythology have the ability to leave. them helping you is a privilege that you shouldn't dare take advantage of both to honor your home that they loved enough to clean for you and because there will be consequences if they catch you trying

"When we view bigotry as the behavior of inhuman villains, it makes it harder to recognise bigotry in ordinary lives."

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I'm a member of "let's stop changing the blame from billionaires and their puppet politicians to minority groups that can't event afford Healthcare".

I feel like the people who criticise the world building and the people who praise it are talking about different things, it's not that there is one thing and people disagree about the quality of it. The fans are talking about how evocative, whimsical and textured the world is and it is all of those things while the critics are talking about how shallow, disjointed and derivative it is and it is those as well. The positive parts read well with kids and spark imagination, but the negative parts don't hold up to scrutiny. The critiques of her writing came long before she went mask off. As her audience aged and dissected things they used to love they realised that it had more flaws than they were expecting. It's not that it's terribly written, but it's not as consistently good as it fealt when we were young.

Regarding the concept of "would we be talking about this if she kept her mouth shut?" I feel as though it would have been similar  to a crass comedy movie or an old 80's fantasy, or something along those lines. The humor and descriptions would have been seen as poorly aged, but potentially otherwise an acceptable product of its time.

I love how most of this video is "okay, Just Kidding Rowling didn't technically do this bad thing and I'm going to defend her for it,

But only because the true story is so much worse"

I find it so interesting that Ursula K. Le Guin noticed something off with the Potter books when most other people didn’t. It shouldn’t be too surprising since her own fictional worlds are so carefully and smartly built, politically as well as spiritually. Heads off to that amazing woman.

She did not come up  with the "Dumbledore is gay" thing or with "Hermione could be black" because of "publicity", obviously; she did not need that. She did it because of her persistent desire to be seen and to see herself as good, open minded and progressive, without actually having to put in the effort to be good, open minded and progressive. She could just say in interviews that Dumbledore was gay, or Hermione black, but she did not write it in the books, which would have proven some commitment to those causes.
From my point of views, this innate hypocrisy of hers is even more annoying as a personality trait.

It's a biased take, but I feel that PJaO and HP succeeded for very similar reasons - they were novel concepts with accessible writing that became popular at just the right time, inspiring a love of reading in both bookworms and the opposite with messy, inconsistent lore that fed quite well into headcannon, participation of a long term thriving fandom, a sprawling relatable cast, an easy way to envision oneself in the world (which specifically existed in tandem with the real world, not an alternate history or entirely fantasy universe like LoR or Narnia) and a clear effort to mature and grow with it's audience despite having some dark themes from the very beginning. Both series and fandoms encouraged discussion, theorizing, anticipation, headcannon and (especially over time) media literacy as fans discussed the intricacies and implications within the work itself as well as broader, real life developments and impacts. Simply having such large and accessible fandoms, both irl and online, provided community, friendships and a place to belong for so many for a very long time.

Both series touched on ostracization, abuse, found family, loss of loved ones, finding a place and purpose in the world and, classically, the very human power of love and friendship. Both had thriving fandoms that shaped understandings of lore and characters to this day, huge communities and arguably as much or more fannon content than genuinely cannon material. But the big difference IMO is what happened over the years, as the audience grew up and moved on, the authors became less relevant and the fandom faded. They even both inspired low-budget musicals (Starkid and The Lightning Thief).

JKR became increasingly opposed to the fans, trying to impose her own views and limiting creativity and refusing to explore the avenues fans were most interested in (like the Marauders) in favor of things no one else was interested (like The Cursed Child and being a terf) and increasingly trying to return to the height of former popularity without properly adding to the series. She increasingly relied on nostalgia, merchandise and references to prior success instead of writing new material or attracting new fans, and repeatedly chose to use her success, wealth and fame to the detriment of others. I genuinely don't know anyone who actually wants the tv show to exist, it feels like a desperate financial pleas for attention.
Rick, on the other hand, saw that newer generations of kids had different ideas, needs and challenges than his own and he adapted - not only showcasing a more diverse variety of characters in new series, but creating a platform for new authors to share their own cultures and creative visions, actively engaging with fans and feedback, and allowing for new interpretations. His writing is far from perfect and I'm not going to claim he handles every topic well, but whether you believe it comes from a cynical desire to remain relevant or a genuine empathy and appreciation of a broader collection of people, he has repeatedly chosen inclusivity, representation and empowerment for topics he could have easily sidestepped, left out or blamed Disney for avoiding.  

Both authors have nitpicked their work and revised cannon, especially in on-screen adaptations, but how and why they did so differ vary drastically. JKR is someone who saw that things have changed since the 90s/early 2000s and reacted with a complete unwillingness to grow or compromise and vitriolic hostility. Most of her comments and changes limit the world, reject critique and exclude both fan opinion and fans themselves. Riordan recognized that times, society and readers were changing - both grown fans of his original work and new generations of young readers - and he chose to adapt to and celebrate those changes to the best of his ability. His changes have largely been an attempt to create a more consistent, accepting and sensitive or considerate world. Both behaviors have real world consequences on real people. That speaks volumes. And while I always hope that the next series or fandom or author will be better than what I grew up with, I also believe that those differences will increasingly effect which library books relatives and parents reach for when offering suggestions to young readers.

2:54 I started just calling her "She Who Must Not Be Paid" because I think that's the most succinct way to explain what my line in the sand is reguardless of anything else

Something that I read about Hermione and her house elf storyline that I haven't seen anyone mention, is that J.K was inspired by her younger self, saying that she often got very into activism in such a way that ended up being annoying to those around her and also offending the people who she was trying to help. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I read it in an interview book I borrowed from the library in the late 90s / early 00s. Having tried to find it online, I would guess it's the book 'Conversations With J K Rowling by Lindsay Fraser' but I haven't read it recently to check my memory. Anyway, I just thought that was interesting because in many ways that's exactly what she's doing again now- J.K is professing to be an activist for women's rights, whilst actually doing harm and offending many women in the process.