I think you misunderstood. I wasn’t talking about the people who claim to have some European origin but the practice in general in the US of acknowledging ancestral ethnic heritage as part of where you’re from.

Descendants of slaves generally have very little knowledge about the origin of their ancestors.

This might be true now, but 200 years ago people were brought here from other countries unwillingly and had children here. If we’re were forcefully taken to another country and then had children at some point I would talk to them about the people left behind and where I came from.

I wonder if some of it doesn’t come from the people who came to America through forced immigration (I.e. the slave trade).

I think it makes sense for people brought unwillingly to America to hold on to that ethnic heritage and culture work hard to instill it in their children, even if they were born in America.

No statewide stay at home order was issued.

Edit: added statewide to clarify. Source: am 'Sotan.

As a Minnesotan I’d be upset if officials didn’t make this announcement. They had an individual who killed 2 people and seriously injured 2 more, whose vehicle was found with No Kings protest flyers, and who had a manifesto that seemed to indicate they had plans for greater violence.

This is the kind of thing people should be warned about. It’s not like it stopped any/many from going but they’d be derelict in their responsibilities if they didn’t let people know.

You know systemic bigotry needs not intent, or context, from the individual, right?

I don’t know but I don’t disagree with it. It’s also not what I said.

You seem to be arguing that your personal lack of hatred towards a group, and lack of direct harm, means your actions can’t be bigoted.

I’m not. My feelings on the subject, hate or lack thereof, have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that consuming Harry Potter content or talking about it online is not equivalent to literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. To make that determination requires context and intent.

And no, being forced to pay taxes is not the same as choosing to buy into something funding bigotry.

They are not directly equivalent though it’s interesting that’s the only example I provided you’re addressing.

You’re not forced. You have the choice to not and face those consequences. It’s an awful and unfair choice that nobody should even have to consider but it’s there. By choosing not to refuse to pay doesn’t mean you’re literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia and that’s the point.

You can disagree with someone’s choice to consume HP content or their decision to discuss it online but that doesn’t make it literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. That requires context and intent.

Transphobia, by definition, consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender or transsexual people, or transness in general. Consuming HP content or talking about it does not meet that literal definition, until or unless there’s context to support it and/or expressed intent, e.g. someone says “I hate trans people so I bought all the HP books to show my support”.

Can’t pardon someone from state charges.

I’m not sure I understand. I made no reference to fictional universes.

The minute you step back and realize that somebody is really trying to argue against letting go of Harry Potter from such a weird angle

I haven’t argued that at all. What I have argued is that context and intent matters when it comes to an individuals actions and, while you’re free to judge away, just because someone lives there their life in a way you don’t like doesn’t automatically make them transphobic or mean they are literally promoting transphobia.

Edit: I had to come back for this bit.

Just not supporting jkr is a lot more clear-cut than all those other examples. It’s easy unless you start justifying it.

I’m guessing this wasn’t your intent but it reads like you should only take a stand when it’s easy.

Except I’m not.

Also you don’t get to decide what’s violence against a community. Just like I don’t get to say what black racism looks like, you don’t get to tell actual trans women what transphobia is.

I didn’t do any of these things.

I’m disappointed you resorted to personal attacks but not surprised. I hope the world gets to a point where trans folks are able to be whomever they want free from persecution. Until then please stay safe and take care of yourself and each other.

I am going to block you now but that’s mostly because I get the sense you have no interest in anything I have to contribute on Lemmy and only a little because I think you may follow me to other communities to downvote me there like you did on every comment here. Even the ones not in response to you.

This is about the response I expected. Too bad.

As I said, if not voluntarily giving money or making excuses for someone who will use that money to hurt people is too much to ask of someone, then their context and intent is quite clear.

Its not.

Including yours.

Thanks for demonstrating. You can imply I’m transphobic or promoting transphobia but I’m literally not. I’m pretty comfortable with the balance I’ve struck and, quite honestly, I’m not being transphobic or promoting transphobia because I don’t care if someone’s trans or not. It’s not really any of my business.

My general philosophy is that people are free to be whomever they want, believe whatever they want etc. as long as they aren’t hurting others or forcing it on other people against there wishes.

This is why I don’t like JK Rowling, but I wouldn’t like her if she was actively working against black people or people with physical or mental disabilities or funding Israeli efforts in Gaza or any number of other things.

I don’t agree with lots of people’s beliefs but I actively dislike them when they begin to weaponize those beliefs.

I love how you chose an example I literally can’t control like taxes.

You do have a choice; you could choose not to and face whatever consequences with your moral conviction intact.

Yes I do judge you for that choice.

This is you’re right but it still doesn’t make it literally promoting transphobia.

Your money is harming your community.

By your logic every person in the United States who pays any kind of taxes that go to the federal government is promoting transphobia. If you’ve ever shopped at a store that employs a transphobe, you’re promoting transphobia. If you’ve ever watched a movie or tv show that has a transphobic actor in it, you’re promoting transphobia. Doesn’t matter if you know it because, they directly benefit from your money.

Everyone has choices to make, however the context and intent behind those choices matters.

It is equivalent, because in this case, it is literally promoting transphobia. One of the worlds leading transphobes will directly benefit from the profits this show makes, and will directly turn those profits against dismantling the rights of trans folk.

adverb: literally in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

It literallyis not. I posted the definition in case you needed it. Purchasing or consuming a product is not exactly the same as promoting transphobia.

By your logic every person in the United States who pays any kind of taxes that go to the federal government is promoting transphobia. If you’ve ever shopped at a store that employs a transphobe, you’re promoting transphobia. If you’ve ever watched a movie or tv show that has a transphobic actor in it, you’re promoting transphobia. Doesn’t matter if you know it because, as you put it, they directly benefit from your money.

If you know she will hurt trans people with the money she makes, and you do things that continue to make her money (which includes just advocating for continued consumption of her work), it is black and white, and the context and intent are quite visible.

The only part of this that’s true is “advocating for continued consumption of her work” and even that’s a stretch because a person could have any number of reasons. Also, simply expressing interest in something is not advocating for it, it’s sharing an opinion or preference.

By itself, it doesn’t mean someone is transphobic. But it does mean that at the very least, personal nostalgia is more important to that person than the harm their actions cause. And that is plenty of intent and context.

It doesn’t mean that, that’s what you’re assuming because that’s what it means to you.

You do not make the rules for other people.

I am so tired of this “fall in line or else” attitude everyone seems to have.

You want to preface it with “in my opinion” you go right ahead and we’ll have to agree to disagree but it is by definition and factually not literally promoting transphobia.

You get that the only person who controls what JK Rowling does is her, right?

You don’t have to like that someone may choose to continue to consume Harry Potter but trying to claim they are directly promoting transphobia unless the context and/or the intent is there.

Someone with a track record of transphobic behavior, sure. Someone who is posting about it in spaces intended for trans people, especially if that space has already clearly communicated their stance on it, maybe.

Context and intent matter.

it ispromoting transphobia

It literally is not, not without context and intent.

Somebody going online and posting, “I grew up with Harry Potter and loved it and I’m interested to see the new [whatever]” is not equivalent to promoting transphobia.

You cannot make a black and white determination like that without context and intent. Without those you’re just making assumptions.

This isn’t completely accurate. I live in South Saint Paul and some of our police have Ford Explorers with no visible light bars and dark blue lettering on black paint.

I’ve seen state patrol make stops on 494 between the Wakota bridge and 35E in dark blue unmarked chargers.

They’re relatively new I think but that same trend of low-profile police cars has started here now too.

Nationally maybe, but not in Minnesota.

Thank you for this comment. I live in Minnesota and expect that if they believe there’s a safety concern this is what they should be saying.

Of course we’re still going to go but it’s only right for our representatives to make sure we, as Minnesotans, can make that decision with full understanding of the safety risks.

I had not seen that before but I’m not sure it applies. Perhaps the wording was poor to indicate my intent but it was not my intention to indicate “a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends” as that article says.

I was trying to communicate that making a broad statement, like OP did, that promoting Harry Potter online indicates transphobia or transphobic behavior by itself.