Hogwarts Legacy - Not as good as Dog Kid University

[Haribokart]

I do think there is a difference between companies who ruin lives as a side product of what they are producing and JKR whose main objective now is to ruin trans lives. Like, she WANTS these people to be miserable/gone. Scummy as they are I'm sure most companies would rather they were not causing pain and suffering, of course they could stop it if they really wanted to and I would never defend the 'shareholders joy > human life' choice 99% of them make but Rowling WANTS to cause pain and is campaigning for others to do so too. That is what makes this worse.

[Graham S]

I don’t find the endless whataboutery very useful. It’s totally valid to be angry about what JKR is doing and want to show love and support and solidarity to our trans friends. Yes, lots of other things in the world are also terrible, but that does not mean we should ignore this particular terrible thing.

 

(While I was typing terrible thing it autocorrected to TERF. Autocorrect knows).

[Rex Grossman]

A big difference between say Foxconn and JKR is that organisations like the former don't want you to focus on anything other than its products. They don't want you thinking about their actions and practises as a company. JKR very much wants you to think about her actions and beliefs. She wants her message and beliefs to spread as wide as possible. Foxconn, Tencent, whoever else, want you to know as little about them as possible.

 

[Mallet]

4 minutes ago, Graham S said:

I don’t find the endless whataboutery very useful. It’s totally valid to be angry about what JKR is doing and want to show love and support and solidarity to our trans friends. Yes, lots of other things in the world are also terrible, but that does not mean we should ignore this particular terrible thing.

 

(While I was typing terrible thing it autocorrected to TERF. Autocorrect knows).

I agree. 

 

What pisses me off is the people who will judge people for buying this game while supporting what are, in my mind, equally horrible. 

 

The reason companies get away with it is because people say it's not the same wtc

[thesnwmn]

5 minutes ago, Graham S said:

Yes, lots of other things in the world are also terrible, but that does not mean we should ignore this particular terrible thing.

 

No. But does it appears to mean some places might say it's not okay to discuss X game plagued by issue A but okay to discuss Y because we don't think issue B.

 

It's so tricky of course.

 

Those who aren't planning to play this will continue to rock up and remind those who do that they're a bit wrong. Whilst if they did the same in other threads they'd probably get some more blowback.

 

In the end the game isn't out so there's noting to discuss other than the issues surrounding it.

[Mallet]

1 minute ago, Rex Grossman said:

A big difference between say Foxconn and JKR is that organisations like the former don't want you to focus on anything other than its products. They don't want you thinking about their actions and practises as a company. JKR very much wants you to think about her actions and beliefs. She wants her message and beliefs to spread as wide as possible. Foxconn, Tencent, whoever else, want you to know as little about them as possible.

 

No they just use their money to lobby politicians into screwing over workers, into allowing bad Labour and environmental practices. 

[Rex Grossman]

4 minutes ago, Mallet said:

No they just use their money to lobby politicians into screwing over workers, into allowing bad Labour and environmental practices. 

 

Are you trying to make my point for me or...?

[Mallet]

2 minutes ago, Rex Grossman said:

 

Are you trying to make my point for me or...?

My point is they are equally bad if not worse yet people wave it off or choose to ignore it because they really want to play a certain game. 

[Strafe]

1 hour ago, ulala said:

 

but it will broaden her reach

 

cognitive dissonance, which has been used to describe emotions above in this thread, really does apply here.

 

 

No, it does not apply here because that is not cognitive dissonance. I’m not using my previous statement in any justification to buy the game. I already said, some pages back, that I’ll buy the game if it’s good. By all means, carry on with your armchair psychological evaluations based on two sentence posts but at least take the time to understand what they are before you do. That to @Lying Cat too.

 

To clarify; I just don’t think the money she gets from Hogwarts Legacy will make much difference to her. She has more than enough money already. That is common sense based on how much money she already has and entirely independent of any purchasing plans.

 

 

 

[Rex Grossman]

9 minutes ago, Mallet said:

My point is they are equally bad if not worse yet people wave it off or choose to ignore it because they really want to play a certain game. 

 

Well, I think that's a point others have been making for a while.

I wasn't saying the other companies don't do bad things. My point is they want those to be secret. JKR wants people to know everything she thinks.

[ulala]

Well, other people do X so I’m going to support JKR who actively wants people not to exist.

/s

 

[Gabe]

4 minutes ago, Strafe said:

To clarify; I just don’t think the money she gets from Hogwarts Legacy will make much difference to her. She has more than enough money already. That is common sense based on how much money she already has and entirely independent of any purchasing plans.

 

 

I don't even think that's a debatable point, is it? She's obscenely rich enough already, I doubt she'll even specifically notice the money from this, it'll just be another thing her accountant looks at.

 

But whether there is any basis in or it not, she may well see support of those buying the game as being tactit support of her views, and that may make her more vigorously lean into them. Whether that is true or not almost isn't the point, even, the fact it could be is a strong ethical argument against buying it.

[Mogster]

Spreading and normalising bigotry > screwing over workers in my book. That's not to say that the latter isn't terrible, it's also a fundamental part of capitalism. Companies will always do everything they can get away with to exploit workers and minimise costs while benefitting execs and shareholders, and it seems nothing short of a full blown revolution is going to change this. I am absolutely not defending this, but I'm not about to stop buying stuff because capitalism, because that simply isn't practical.

 

Rowling is an absolute arsehole who is obsessed with demonising trans people because of her bigotry. It's a particular brand of bigotry which seems to be becoming more and more acceptable in the UK, due in no small part to Rowling and people like her, and it's making life increasingly horrible for trans people. 

 

Ultimately, it's never a bad thing to show support to marginalised people who deserve it. It's better to support a single cause than it is to support nothing, and it's never a good argument to suggest people must either boycott everything or nothing at all.

 

7 minutes ago, Strafe said:

To clarify; I just don’t think the money she gets from Hogwarts Legacy will make much difference to her. She has more than enough money already. That is common sense based on how much money she already has and entirely independent of any purchasing plans.

You're probably right, but I don't think anyone here is suggesting we're going to bankrupt Rowling by not buying a game. It's simply a matter of whether you want to show support for her and her views.

[Flub]

43 minutes ago, Mallet said:

And half the people judging you will be posting from iPhones, buying From Software with their Tencent backing, buying EA, Activision or playing Blizzard games. 

 

Plenty of games that Era will happily allow discussions about actively try to hook children on gambling. Little kids getting hooked on gambling but they like Madden/Fifa so we'll let that slide. 

 

Plus have people actually researched how their gadgets get made? The entire supply chain from mining to production involves exploiting poor people and human misey. For fuck sake the factories where IPhones were assembled had netting outside the windows to catch people who were driven to suicide working there. 

 

I'm old enough to remember when Nike had small children stitching their products together yet the same people judging you will be decked out in Nike gear. 

 

The Chinese government is fucking horrendous yet people will happily buy games that were made with Tencent's backing. The 2022 goty that many people consider the goat, Elden Ring, was partially backed by Tencent who have direct ties to and support one of the most brutal and oppresive regimes on the planet. 

 

[Strafe]

9 minutes ago, Gabe said:

I don't even think that's a debatable point, is it? She's obscenely rich enough already, I doubt she'll even specifically notice the money from this, it'll just be another thing her accountant looks at.

 

But whether there is any basis in or it not, she may well see support of those buying the game as being tactit support of her views, and that may make her more vigorously lean into them. Whether that is true or not almost isn't the point, even, the fact it could be is a strong ethical argument against buying it.

Someone said/implied that she would use the money from Hogwarts legacy to further her agenda. I said I didn’t think that was the case.

 

 

[Zael]

28 minutes ago, Mallet said:

My point is they are equally bad if not worse yet people wave it off or choose to ignore it because they really want to play a certain game. 

 

If you're actually concerned about these other issues, would it not be better to discuss those issues in the relevant threads, rather than using those issues as a tool to shutdown discussion of this issue?

[Strafe]

9 minutes ago, Mogster said:

 

 

You're probably right, but I don't think anyone here is suggesting we're going to bankrupt Rowling by not buying a game. It's simply a matter of whether you want to show support for her and her views.

 

Here we go again.

 

It is not ‘simply’ that matter though unless you’re going to - insanely - apply that same logic to every single thing you buy. Which of course you wouldn’t, because that would be insane.

 

[Flub]

If you can't do everything then you should obviously do nothing

  --- Someone very intelligent

[Mogster]

I'd also add that buying games, tech or whatever else produced in any part from exploitation of workers (that is, most stuff) is generally not perceived as showing support for those practices. Businesses know they're being awful, or at least know they'll be perceived as such and try and hide this fact as much as possible.

 

Buying this game however is basically giving Rowling a thumbs up to keep doing what she's doing. She thinks she's in the right, and is being bolstered by her own, ever growing echo chamber of people who now feel similarly empowered.

 

6 minutes ago, Strafe said:

It is not ‘simply’ that matter though unless you’re going to - insanely - apply that same logic to every single thing you buy. Which of course you wouldn’t, because that would be insane.

Did you read the rest of my post? Once again; "Ultimately, it's never a bad thing to show support to marginalised people who deserve it. It's better to support a single cause than it is to support nothing, and it's never a good argument to suggest people must either boycott everything or nothing at all."

[Spacehost]

"There's no ethical consumption under capitalism", shrugs Brian, 37, over the sound of screeching and whirling blades as he pushes a third cat into the Cat-Into-Cash-O-Matic.

[Strafe]

1 minute ago, Mogster said:

Did you read the rest of my post? Once again; "Ultimately, it's never a bad thing to show support to marginalised people who deserve it. It's better to support a single cause than it is to support nothing, and it's never a good argument to suggest people must either boycott everything or nothing at all."

No, I did not, apologies. I only read the part directly underneath where you quoted me and fired from the hip.

 

I think I worded this post better a few pages back but I agree and would like to reiterate my respect for anyone boycotting this on principle. The issue I take is when accusations (not from you) of being complicit start getting cast out by people who are seemingly prepared to stick to their principles on this HL.

[Darren]

Unfortunately JK herself has made her income from Potter royalties an explicit indicator of how she's right and it's the kids who are wrong.

 

 

If you can read that and still think that every sale of every Potter related product doesn't boost and embolden her then I don't know what else to tell you.

[Mallet]

17 minutes ago, Flub said:

If you can't do everything then you should obviously do nothing

  --- Someone very intelligent

If you don't support everything I do you are a bad person. 

 

I don't care about what you care about but I am still a good person. 

 

Some person who believes they are morally superior to others. 

[Sixkiller]

31 minutes ago, Mogster said:

I don't think anyone here is suggesting we're going to bankrupt Rowling by not buying a game. It's simply a matter of whether you want to show support for her and her views.

 

Choosing to not buy the game is a perfectly valid way of opposing her views, I get that and fully support peoples' freedom to do that.

 

However, to imply that anyone buying it therefore shows support for her and her views is wrong.  They've been quite clear she's not involved in the creation of the game, so it doesn't carry any of her messaging (I'm not aware of any HP material pushing her views?).  Yes, if you follow the financial trail you can argue she, or at least her company, will receive financial benefit from a purchase, but that does not equate to a vote in favour of her views.  Just because someone holding back their cash sees that as a vote against does not make the reverse true (although I'm sure some dickheads will buy it just to prove a point).

 

 

I think Harry Potter is a pile of turgid shite, so fortunately I personally have no decision to make.  However, if my son chooses to buy it, and then plays it using my console, the Resetera attitude seems to suggest that I could be branded a bigot just for not enforcing a household-wide extension of their boycott?

 

[Nick R]

19 hours ago, Strafe said:

I only got the Terf war gag just now.

 

19 hours ago, Rex Grossman said:

That gag is better than the game will ever be. Or most games will ever be.

 

Rowling used the same pun when she linked to the blog post she wrote when she first went into detail about her transphobic views:

 

 

 

I thought I remembered that the blog post itself was also originally titled/URL'd "TERF Wars", before it was quickly renamed to the less snappy "JK Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues".

 

However I can't confirm that; as far as I can tell, Archive.org has only preserved pages with the latter URL and title. And following the link in JKR's above tweet, it now takes you to her site's "Answers to Questions" page, rather than to the essay.

[ulala]

5 minutes ago, Sixkiller said:

(I'm not aware of any HP material pushing her views?). 

 

 

Then you had better read up on how HP is full of shit like this.

[footle]

8 minutes ago, Sixkiller said:

 

Choosing to not buy the game is a perfectly valid way of opposing her views, I get that and fully support peoples' freedom to do that.

 

However, to imply that anyone buying it therefore shows support for her and her views is wrong.  They've been quite clear she's not involved in the creation of the game, so it doesn't carry any of her messaging (I'm not aware of any HP material pushing her views?).  Yes, if you follow the financial trail you can argue she, or at least her company, will receive financial benefit from a purchase, but that does not equate to a vote in favour of her views.  Just because someone holding back their cash sees that as a vote against does not make the reverse true (although I'm sure some dickheads will buy it just to prove a point).

 

 

I think Harry Potter is a pile of turgid shite, so fortunately I personally have no decision to make.  However, if my son chooses to buy it, and then plays it using my console, the Resetera attitude seems to suggest that I could be branded a bigot just for not enforcing a household-wide extension of their boycott?

 

I think that’s the logical conclusion, yes.

 

Quote

Just because someone holding back their cash sees that as a vote against does not make the reverse true

and I think this is why you need to be careful with a boycott - because this messaging is dangerous: lots of people will buy this game if it’s even slightly good, and one alternative position would be to strongly push back on the idea that purchasing it has anything whatsoever to do with support for Rowlings position on trans rights (or complete lack of them).

(this being different from buying a book by Glinner or something: because there you might have a chance of actually depressing the sales - it’s a battle you might win).

 

and please distinguish this from an argument about any individual making a decision in solidarity - that’s obviously fine!

[Mogster]

7 minutes ago, Sixkiller said:

 

Choosing to not buy the game is a perfectly valid way of opposing her views, I get that and fully support peoples' freedom to do that.

 

However, to imply that anyone buying it therefore shows support for her and her views is wrong.  They've been quite clear she's not involved in the creation of the game, so it doesn't carry any of her messaging (I'm not aware of any HP material pushing her views?).  Yes, if you follow the financial trail you can argue she, or at least her company, will receive financial benefit from a purchase, but that does not equate to a vote in favour of her views.  Just because someone holding back their cash sees that as a vote against does not make the reverse true (although I'm sure some dickheads will buy it just to prove a point).

 

 

I think Harry Potter is a pile of turgid shite, so fortunately I personally have no decision to make.  However, if my son chooses to buy it, and then plays it using my console, the Resetera attitude seems to suggest that I could be branded a bigot just for not enforcing a household-wide extension of their boycott?

 

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. My whole point is that there's no nuance involved in making a purchase. There's no tick box when you place the order to say whether you agree with Rowling's views, but the implication remains. A purchase of the game shows support for Rowling's views whether you actually support them or not.

 

I don't think anyone on this forum would agree with the hate spewed by Rowling. At least I certainly hope so! 

[Lying Cat]

1 minute ago, Mogster said:

I don't think anyone on this forum would agree with the hate spewed by Rowling. At least I certainly hope so! 

 

But the marketplace of ideas.

[thesnwmn]

Just now, Mogster said:

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. My whole point is that there's no nuance involved in making a purchase. There's no tick box when you place the order to say whether you agree with Rowling's views, but the implication remains. A purchase of the game shows support for Rowling's views whether you actually support them or not.

 

I don't think anyone on this forum would agree with the hate spewed by Rowling. At least I certainly hope so! 

 

I don't think it's being misinterpreted, just a statement that reverse of your position applies.

 

It is those against the purchasing of the game who risk creating a narrative that the success of this game directly reflects support for JKR's views.

 

That just isn't the case. So by all means don't support it. But vilifying those who does creates the situation people might be worried about.