With all that said . . .

[feotakahari]

I read a review by someone who actually played the new Harry Potter game. It’s got the usual thing where the bad guys want rights but “go too far,” and by stopping them, you’re hopefully allowing for better, less violent change. Thing is, this takes place in 1890. Goblins are still discriminated against in the modern-era books. Stopping the people who think they can make things better takes on a lot more weight when things didn’t get better.

Comments

[random_thought_depository]

I'm not into Harry Potter at all, but I'm getting the impression JK Rowling's fundamental problem is she has normie centrist liberal political instincts. So Hermione's attempts to liberate House Elves are seen as a good-hearted but silly youthful folly, because that's how centrist normie liberals see young people who get into veganism or socialism. And goblins who attempt to redress their condition through violent revolution are seen as somewhat sympathetic but basically bad and scary, because that's how a centrist normie liberal sees left-wing radicalism, black radicalism, etc.. And as a centrist normie liberal, she doesn't think very much about the implications of stuff, because normie centrism is basically a politics of the conformist and comfortable and normiehood is basically a cognitive strategy of outsourcing a lot of your cognition to community norms and community received wisdom. And that means she easily blunders into stuff with unfortunate implications, and she's vulnerable to manipulation by right-wingers, and she's likely to react to criticism or attacks "from the left" by aligning herself with right-wingers because she sees the center-right as more legitimate than the far left and a lot of her politics is basically driven by reflexive emotional reactions and a lot of her factional affiliation and sense of who's good and trustworthy is basically driven by who's personally chummy with her.