Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/LowStakesConspiracies/comments/1xf8tv9/jk_rowling_making_harry_potter_say_voldemort/

HIGHLIGHTS

People can be bigoted about one thing without being bigoted about everything.

Kingsley Shacklebolt

Cho Chang.

Is a perfectly normal name

It's a Korean surname combined with a Chinese surname. You could argue Chang is perfectly acceptable but then use an actual Chinese first name. Or have Cho and then a Korean first name. Or, shocking take. Have a Western first name because the character is British and might well. Jane Chang makes more sense than Cho Chang for anyone who did more than 30 seconds of research.

Cho Chang is a Chinese name, likely of Hong Kong origin.

And that's a lovely story. There are about 104 TOTAL incidences of Cho as a first name in Hong Kong. It's overwhelmingly a romanization of a surname, not a first name.

Yeah but her stereotyping of the banking elves to look like Nazi caricatures of Jews is telling.

It’s funny how much you tell on yourselves for making this comparison.

Are you just learning about the existence of racist stereotypes?

They're pointing out that you don't even know what they are, so you are uneducated on the subject. They aren't elves. She also used depictions of goblins that were 500 yrs old. You saw short things with gold and thought "oh, they look Jewish." How are you not the racist here?

I got the name of a fantasy creature wrong. The stereotype remains. How am I racist here? Go on, explain

Yes, you are uneducated on the matter as I established. I just explained it. You're determined to compare a small ugly creature with gold to a jewish person, that's why. You didn't even know what they were or the origin of the folklore, but your mind jumped to "jewish person."

“Established” lol no. So you’re just going to dismiss the whole stereotype? Guess you’d also dismiss a swastika being used because of the link to Sanskrit/hindu origins. Just because there is historical context of Goblins existing prior (typically not as bankers) , whereas the Nazi stereotype was clear - it doesn’t mean the stereotype doesn’t exist in modern society. (18 more comments of these two arguing)

The people at the banks are goblins, and they look like goblins. She’s probably a racist, but the Nazi caricatures were intentionally depicting Jews like goblins, and those guys are actually goblins, so it’s not a surprise that they share traits.

Right. It's just a coincidence she made them bankers.

I mean I literally hate to defend her in anyway, I think shes an evil human being, but goblins in fantasy are traditionally very money hungry creatures. Its the same in the Warcraft Universe, DnD, magic the gathering, even the movie Labyrinth from the 80s. I wouldn't be surprised if she's racist, but I dont really need more reasons to despise her than I already have

Right. She had no choice but to use goblins. There was a literal gun to her head. I agree with you.

What? Are people not allowed to use a fictional race in their fictional story? Is that what you're saying lol

No I'm saying when a racist writes a story, she's going to use racial stereotypes in her racist stories. If you and I wrote a story about a greedy goblin, and we don't (assumedly) have a history of antisemitism or racism or bigotry of any kind... No one is gonna go "Hey MrJackGuy & RealNiceKnife, what the fuck is with the greedy goblin?" Some might, but you'd say that thing about goblins and fantasy and people would be like "Yeah, duh, makes sense..." But if lets say Richard Spencer wrote a story about a greedy goblin, people might be like "Hey, is this an allegory for something? It sure seems like it and your history of being a white supremacist definitely raises a few questions."

Racial stereotypes like very long fingers, slender arms, pointy ears and sharp teeth? That's how goblins are described in the books.

Harry potter, as a booknseries, had a strong pro-tolerance and anti-prejudice message. The fact that Rowling has turned into a raging transphobe doesn't change that.

It had a strong pro-tolerance and anti-prejudice message that was muddied/tainted by the very obvious unquestioned bigotries that were also always there in the text. Rowling's particularly rabid hatred of trans women wasn't there yet, but let's not oversimplify things.

Harry Potter is just such a surface level whimsy reading. House elves are an old part of folk-lore, which is why they were included. Rowling then got butt hurt when people took it as serious slavery instead of whimsy magic elves from all the folk tales. That's all there is to it.

The house elves were far from the only issue lol

What would you say are the biggest issues?

Biggest in terms of most obviously egregious? The goblins as anti semitic caricature. The characaterization of SPEW was also pretty bad. Biggest as in present throughout much of the book? The misogyny, racism, and just plain old weirdness about non-normative bodies. All of these were at "normal" levels for the mainstream at the time, but normal =/= good. These were all far more lowkey than the goblins, but also far more pervasive. Biggest as in most closely tied to the central narrative? The failure to really grapple with the fact that the societal structures that produced voldemort and allowed him to gain power were all still in place, making the rise of another genocidal maniac all but inevitable. But Harry's a cop now so we're supposed to think it's all okay. Again, very "normal" but also incompatible with the characterization as "staunchly progressive"

I wish I had as little problems in life as you to look so deeply into a kids story to try and find hidden things to be offended at as you

New character Ebony Nword incoming. Edit: I got a redit warning for this comment

You deserve the warning because people use these Rowling threads as an excuse to post their own racist tropes

That's shitty of them, but I assure you, my comment is 100% making fun of Rowling's offensive naming conventions.

Your lack of self-awareness is scary

Joanne doesn’t hate black people. Unless they’re trans.

The only black character in the franchise has the last name Shacklebolt, she’s racist, and if she could put the hard R in her books, she would’ve

UK doesn't have a slavery fascination. He is a wizard cop. He puts people in shackles. His first name is King, he becomes minster for magic. People are desperate to outraged.

King? Like Martin Luther? Jesus Christ lmfao

That's far to US centric for a British children's book. He is barely mentioned in UK schools. At least back in the 90's/00's.

I think God gave you too much grace before sending you over here. The last name is Shacklebolt for crying out loud, you might say that’s a little US centric lol. Do not watch the new Elizabeth Holmes documentary, she will win you over.

What are you one about?

What are you on about?

Mature...

I do not like jk Rowling but oh my god you people are exhausting. Just look at the shit she is actively doing instead of looking for subtext that isn't there

I dont even like Harry potter but now the anti Harry potter people are becoming more annoying than the Harry potter fan

It's exhausting to read. I saw r/crafts banned harry potter anything recently. Any thread with ANYTHING harry potter related just brings these people out. It's pathetic virtue signalling. People just want to look clever and be woke for karma

Rowling is actively influencing uk policy to remove the civil rights of trans people, grow up and realise people are actually in danger because of her

No she isn't.

https://www.advocate.com/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-organization

"The J.K. Rowling Women's Fund (JKRWF) offers legal funding support to individuals and organisations fighting to retain women's sex-based rights in the workplace, in public life, and in protected female spaces." It's a feminist legal fund for women's rights.

Yeah and the Nazis were socialists. A version of feminism that doesn't include trans women isn't real feminists and TERFs are just conservatives using feminism as a disguise.

Back then people knew they were female or male and if you liked to cross dress people just assumed it was your thing and was harmless. So doubtful.

Trans people have literally always existed, try again, moron.

Yeah thats what I just said. But no one was trying to change the meaning of biological sex then.

biological sex has always been a loose category, biology is not all that consistant. sex is primarily defined by hormones and genitals, which a transgender person can change. chromosomes and whatever other factors people cite are not particulary accurate at denoting sex, even in people who fit the binary. still, before humanity had medical transition, a plethora of cultures accepted transgender people as being more than their birth sex. indiginous populations all across the globe had words for these people, and different roles in society. transgender people are also biologically predisposed to identifying a certain way, regardless of societal structure. the way the brain interprets the body in transgender individuals is different to cisgender peoples, and certain hormone recepters are more likely to be missing or overactive.

Yeah that’s just fantasy. Biological sex has never been a ‘loose category’ lmao It’s worked for hundreds of thousands of years.

This just isn’t true. Intersex people have always existed (ie some proportion of people you perceive as ‘men’ don’t have XY chromosomes and/or typical male genitalia, and some proportion of people you perceive as ‘women’ don’t have XX chromosomes and/or typical female genitalia) - and many cultures throughout history have had accepted ways of integrating people who didn’t fit into a binary gender classification.

Title says all. How on earth did this replace door to door trick or treating? Literally the whole time my kids getting stepped on by the family behind us trying to get through the trunk or treat for the free hot dogs at the end, and we spent more time waiting in line than we did actually doing the trunk or treating.

Back in my day you’d go out for 2-3 hours with pillow cases and come back with damn near a tote full of candy while being a hooligan through the neighborhood. Great times were had. Your parents would decorate and you’d help to get your house as spooky scary as possible. I cannot communicate the joy all of that would bring me. And it’s been mostly replaced in my area by this absolutely horrid trunk or treating. I hated it before I ever tried the trunk or treating and now I’m just viscerally pissed off something so awful could replace something so key to my childhood.

Anyway, rant over. Fuck whoever thought up trunk or treating, I hope the depths of hell burn you for eternity for depriving so many kids the opportunity of being miscreants and getting candy the old fashioned way.

Posters point reasons for trunk or treat due to rural areas (houses are spread out, kids with disabilities and special needs etc)

We live in an area where there IS NO neighborhood to go trick or treating. Neighbors are far apart, driveways long, roads dark and wooded and frequented by inattentive drivers, etc.

It's a great alternative for those of us in this situation. Don't have a need or want to do it in your neck of the woods? All good; no one's forcing you to go to one.

I'm more impressed that so many grown adults (not just here; I frequently see it elsewhere) get so bent out of shape about the idea or somehow can't fathom that others don't necessarily have the same trick-or-treating situation at their disposal.

Then again, given the world today, maybe I shouldn't be.

Edit: yay, downvotes for giving kids more opportunities to enjoy being a kid

I don’t get how people can’t understand that some others have different circumstances than themselves. Maybe there isn’t a neighborhood to trick or treat or maybe the area isn’t safe? Or maybe this exists and trick or treating exists.

there are some communities that have 0 walkable roads, no sidewalks, no real neighborhoods to speak of. the kids would need walk 55mph roads that literally everyone speeds on where the houses are 100+ yards apart minimum and 0 streetlights as well as deep woods and ditches filling in every inch of other space

even "back in the day" no one was stupid enough to try trick or treating there.

theres a township north of me that literally has nowhere to trick or treat.

so i think it does have some value.

but if you live in a typical dense suburban neighborhood and opt to go trunk or treating; youre lame as hell.

also, as im thinking, its probably nice for kids with disabilities or special needs.

It's not 1990 anymore dads. We can't be the "back in my day" crew. If you kids like it who cares? Halloween and holidays don't have to be harder just because they were when we were younger. Let the kids have fun and relax.

And if you want to "fuck whoever thought up trunk or treating" it was initially created for kids who don't have neighborhoods to walk around in. Kids who maybe don't have a safe neighborhood or an adult to go out with them. And for kids who just frankly can't walk that long due to disabilities or other issues. Don't they deserve to do Halloween too?

Other replies about driving to other neighborhoods and reply about it might be no doable due to parking and HOA issues

No usually drove to neighborhoods and acted like they lived there.

If you’re driving to a parking lot couldn’t you just drive your kids to a neighbourhood to do regular trick or treating?

Where are you parking in that neighborhood? Might be an HOA issue or it might be tight on parking spaces.

Other replies

OP is probably a millennial who needs to have something about the younger generations to complain about. As a millennial, it's disheartening to see so many people my age fall into the same traps that boomers and Gen Xers did when it comes to wanting to blame everything bad on the younger generations.

Like many have said, it's an auxiliary event. My kid has had a church trunk or treat, a safe trick or treat (we go to my old hometown where the businesses hand out candy on main street) so he gets the Halloween experience with my dad) and he still has a traditional Halloween night going up to the doors at night.

This gen is starting to get that "back in my day" boomer energy.

Dude I'm with you but I can't believe you seriously hit us with the "back in my day"

https://www.reddit.com/r/daddit/comments/1xfh49i/trunk_or_treating_sucks/

The original post, If you hear something as you go down Navajo Trail...

"At first, the sounds drifting up through the switchbacks of the Navajo Trail seemed almost otherworldly. Perhaps some distant echo carried by the wind through the hoodoos?

Nope. Just a group of worshippers who had decided that the bottom of the canyon was the perfect place for a musical performance.

They turned one of the world’s most awe inspiring landscapes into the backdrop for their own personal...whatever this was.

And naturally, pun intended, most everyone stood directly in areas clearly marked “DO NOT ENTER”

What could you even do at this point but be in awe and annoyed?"

Most comments agree that this is obnoxious, until...

Of course if it was Native Americans, you would all be just fine and dandy

"Oh fuck all the way off you ignorant turnip"

"I mean, they do have a point, no?"

"What about the Sex Pistols on Bluetooth speaker?"

"I’d take Sex Pistols on a Bluetooth speaker over Christian morons any day."

lol its the truth though, you hate whites, but you will tolerate anyone else disturbing your peace because DEI

"What’s your point here? It’s fine for white Christians to ignore the rules because maybe Native Americans are too? Almost all of the Native Americans who worship on public land have permission to because that area is sacred to their religion. Neither of those things appear to be the case here. You letting people have an exception seems to be the very thing you are angry about except I can’t put my finger on what’s different this time……."

"I didn’t know singing was banned in national parks, my bad. 😬"

(Further down that thread, someone finds evidence that this person is a bot)

Who cares. A bunch of people in here who are more interested with limiting constitutional activities on public lands than they are with allowing people to experience public land freely

"Freedom isn’t a blank check to do whatever you want on public land. I’m sure there are reasonable places to do this without going off trail."

"Why should it be up to you to define what constitutes reasonable exercise of the first amendment"

"Buddy we have decades of case law that proves you wrong. Do some subject matter research and have a nice day."

Music amongst the tree holes. I can get with that. (just wanna point out this user is a gimmick account that posts solely about tree holes, not relevant to the drama but amusing lol)

"What about someone with a Bluetooth speaker, pumping the volume with rap? Dat kool?" (this is the same person who asked the Sex Pistols hypothetical)

I spend time with mother nature to hear her, not some white christian nationalists impugning her sanctity.

"Good thing you stated their race. That’s such an important part."

"Snowflake"

"Racist scum"

"Uh oh somebody struck a nerve."

"lol no. But I will call you clowns out."

"Sorry if I bruised your soft white flesh."

"Whenever there are this many young white people gathered, you know something is going to go wrong"

Mods of r/BryceCanyon lock the post after all of this

A redditor who might be a little notorious creates a post showing the costs of modern living, at least for him. The post itself has some insulting words, and OP gets defensive in the comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Salary/comments/1xfaw80/85000_is_the_bare_minimum_salary_needed_to_be_a/

Assumptions:

1. NOTHING saved or put away for future home ownership
2. VERY conservative on the cost of being in a relationship, I know guys spending that much on a single date night, not for the whole month
3. No hobbies listed (a lot of you guys have extremely cheap hobbies like “play video games”, real human beings often have more outdoor type hobbies that actually cost money)

I put all the percentages for each category on the right side of the chart since inevitably someone will come in and nitpick one of the line items (“bro, you’re spending THAT much on a haircut?! I can ignore everything else you’re saying, bro!”) but with the percents there we can see they’re nitpicking at like 0.2% of the monthly budget. Most on here are numerically illiterate and don’t actually understand what it costs to live a middle class lifestyle.

Feel free to explain what you disagree with on this chart or which item you don’t consider necessary for living a middle class lifestyle.

Instantly knew who posted this

Relationships too much

Which part?

The cost of getting into gaming is actually expensive nowadays, I kind of agree, but there’s also a lot of high quality free to play games relative to ~20 years ago.

I’m angry because you can’t read and are saying things that I’ve covered if you’d actually just read?