Hogwarts Legacy (PC, PS5, XSX/S, XBONE, PS4, NSW, C64, ZXS)

Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Karl_ wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:I think morally it's worse to buy expensive hardware made in a country committing genocide but a lot of us (including myself) are going to do that soon.

For sure. There's an inescapable tension between the moral imperative to try to make ethical decisions about purchases, and the knowledge that pretty much any product we buy - KK listed all sorts - will have had serious negative impacts on some community or environment as it was made.

J.K. Rowling is currently using her influence to, basically, plaster unhinged conspiracy theories about trans people all over Twitter. That's something that I've been directly exposed to: I've read it and seen the very upset reactions of trans people I know or follow, and it disgusts me and makes me angry with her. So I don't want to buy a video game I associate with her. It's an emotional response, a kind of f-you to her as a person.

But logically you're right, you know? I have all sorts of electronics and gadgets that contributed to armed conflict in central Africa or child labour in China. I do need one or two of them, but not all of them - I could have at least made an effort to get my Switch second-hand, or got a less fancy phone that hopefully had a less dire impact on the world. It's not like I don't care about the issues! And typing that out I feel a bit bad that I didn't try harder, to be honest! But at the same time, I recognise it's silly to expect change to come from a handful of particularly conscientious consumers feeling guilty and deciding to get Fairphones instead of Samsungs. It's the system of global capitalism that props up mine-warlords in the Congo, not individual purchasing preferences.

So the real way to lobby for change in society is through organising and solidarity, right? For instance, you advocate for (and if possible help out with!) unions if you want better working conditions and worker's rights. The goal is to get people talking about unions, to understand why they're important and what they can do, and fingers crossed people then join and contribute dues or time or take part in actions. Or if it's racism and social justice you feel strongly about, then the BLM protests are a good example of something you can be really vocal in your support for, and so on.

I guess my conclusion is that while choosing not to buy something (even as part of a boycott) is not going to make a great deal of difference in and of itself, using a controversial product as an opportunity to advocate for systemic change might be impactful. I'm not actually going to save the world by buying a Fairphone, but maybe if I were to buy one then talk to people about conflict minerals or climate change then that could have a positive impact. Buying a Harry Potter videogame doesn't make someone a transphobe, but if someone is trans or a trans ally and advocates for trans rights by telling people why they're not buying the game then I think that's a reasonable form of activism.

I don't know what the best way to phrase the discussion is, but I think lots of people saying "I'm not buying J.K. Rowling's new game because she is a horrible bigot" is good. I'm not going to try to talk anyone else out of making the purchase, but I definitely am going to try to convince people that there is a movement of people - of which J.K. Rowling is one - spreading really quite vicious anti-trans rhetoric; that this group is really very aggressive with how it lobbies politicians and the media, and tries very hard to make its arguments seem "scientific" or "feminist", but actually has more in common with the anti gay rights movement; and that as it picks up steam, it's also becoming an engine for more general homophobia of all different kinds, using anti-trans rhetoric as a wedge. As long as we're all genuinely aware of J.K. Rowling's really nasty bigotry and her role in all that then I don't personally care that much if anyone buys the game or not because this moment will have fulfilled its purpose in spreading that information.

Saying all that, I still think it's fair enough if trans people or queer allies, who are currently having all sorts of abuse thrown at them because of J.K. Rowling, call someone a dickhead for buying Harry Potter stuff. Trans people might well take this as a mark of who is a genuine ally, so I feel like people who choose to make the purchase have got to bear that in mind and take it on the chin.

Expressing a view that is different from someone else does make that individual a bigot - perspective is required

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

Without wanting to get into the Rowling issue I think this looks like it could be a very good game set in a world a lot of people still love or grew up loving.

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Dude, her views and what she's said have literally caused trans children to self harm. She's hurting people with her views directly.

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant to others views. You’ve proven my point.

Qikz wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Dude, her views and what she's said have literally caused trans children to self harm. She's hurting people with her views directly.

Have you actually read her quote - where is the data that proves the link between her quote and people self harming. Anyways, thought this was a video game forum and no offence was intended, simply stating my view.

Clarkman wrote:To those suggesting that an active boycott wouldn't damage sales, there's actually significant evidence of both the first and secondhand market for Rowling's books having slumped in the last six months, as she's publicly taken hardline bigoted views. This is during a period when otherwise the trade has been booming.

See reports here and here.

Boycotts work. strawberry float all products associated with her worlds.

Fair play!

@Karl this was probably aimed at me, I directly posted I didn't think a boycott would have much of an impact on sales.

My previous reading on effective boycotts has suggested the norm is to be more about the media coverage and subsequent effect on stock price rather than an immediate and significant drop in sales. I wonder if the nature of the product makes a significant difference (I think perhaps it does, a book will be treated differently as a purchase to a brand of food or whatever I reckon).

Karl_ wrote:

Clarkman wrote:Boycotts work. strawberry float all products associated with her worlds.

I can't tell if this is aimed at me...? Maybe I'm being paranoid? It feels like it is, but I never actually said "an active boycott wouldn't damage sales" (of course it will).

No targeting mate! Don't worry.

What I'm very conscious of because of my exposure to the media/arts space, is how risk-averse and temperamental the sector can be.

Even a slight dip in forecast sales at the launch of a new product (the launch being disproportionately the most important point) will affect and determine how allocated resources are devoted to it, shaping how it is updated/maintained/built upon.

The legacy/future of the entire Potter media empire can be massively affected by the (perceived) failure of a single part of its empire, because the same group of investors are bankrolling all of it, and they'll very readily withdraw their money from everything if it becomes more trouble than it is worth.

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant to others views. You’ve proven my point.

Was just my opinion.

Am I not allowed one?

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant to others views. You’ve proven my point.

Was just my opinion.

Am I not allowed one?

You are indeed - but your response to my post was to immediately call me a twat and therefore imply my opinion was wrong.

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant to others views. You’ve proven my point.

Was just my opinion.

Am I not allowed one?

You are indeed - but your response to my post was to immediately call me a twat and therefore imply my opinion was wrong.

Did I? All I said was "twat", seems like you read a lot into that.

Would I be allowed to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong?

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant to others views. You’ve proven my point.

Was just my opinion.

Am I not allowed one?

You are indeed - but your response to my post was to immediately call me a twat and therefore imply my opinion was wrong.

Did I? All I said was "twat", seems like you read a lot into that.

Would I be allowed to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong?

Moggy - you are clearly trying to twist words for a reaction. Let’s agree to disagree.

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant to others views. You’ve proven my point.

Was just my opinion.

Am I not allowed one?

You are indeed - but your response to my post was to immediately call me a twat and therefore imply my opinion was wrong.

Did I? All I said was "twat", seems like you read a lot into that.

Would I be allowed to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong?

Moggy - you are clearly trying to twist words for a reaction. Let’s agree to disagree.

I'm clearly not, you're the one who insinuated I meant something that I didn't say.

All I've done is use your own argument. JK Rowling expresses her view and you support that. Other people think she is wrong/a bigot and won't buy products associated with her. Why is that "disturbing"? Isn't that their choice?

If you want free speech and for people to be able to express their opinions, then you will have to accept being called a twat.

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant to others views. You’ve proven my point.

Was just my opinion.

Am I not allowed one?

You are indeed - but your response to my post was to immediately call me a twat and therefore imply my opinion was wrong.

Did I? All I said was "twat", seems like you read a lot into that.

Would I be allowed to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong?

Moggy - you are clearly trying to twist words for a reaction. Let’s agree to disagree.

I'm clearly not, you're the one who insinuated I meant something that I didn't say.

All I've done is use your own argument. JK Rowling expresses her view and you support that. Other people think she is wrong/a bigot and won't buy products associated with her. Why is that "disturbing"? Isn't that their choice?

If you want free speech and for people to be able to express their opinions, then you will have to accept being called a twat.

Moggy - your use of the word twat and subsequent posts confirm to me you are a mighty keyboard warrior, keep up the good work fella

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Bravewolverine wrote:Boycott a game because, shock horror, JK Rowling has expressed an opinion on something which, to many people, was non offensive and simply a point of view. I do find this trend of not being able to express a view unless it fits with a certain narrative very disturbing.

Twat.

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant to others views. You’ve proven my point.

Was just my opinion.

Am I not allowed one?

You are indeed - but your response to my post was to immediately call me a twat and therefore imply my opinion was wrong.

Did I? All I said was "twat", seems like you read a lot into that.

Would I be allowed to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong?

Moggy - you are clearly trying to twist words for a reaction. Let’s agree to disagree.

I'm clearly not, you're the one who insinuated I meant something that I didn't say.

All I've done is use your own argument. JK Rowling expresses her view and you support that. Other people think she is wrong/a bigot and won't buy products associated with her. Why is that "disturbing"? Isn't that their choice?

If you want free speech and for people to be able to express their opinions, then you will have to accept being called a twat.

Moggy - your use of the word twat and subsequent posts confirm to me you are a mighty keyboard warrior, keep up the good work fella

No problem. It's just nice to come across somebody that's such a great supporter of free speech.

Also all these people rallying against "cancel culture" are also huge proponents of the free market.

Why can't the market freely decide not to buy something based on whatever the strawberry float factors it wants?

Bravewolverine wrote:

Karl_ wrote:.

Expressing a view that is different from someone else does make that individual a bigot - perspective is required

Doesn't it depend what the view is? If you have a disagreement of opinion over pizza toppings, that isn't bigotry. If your disagreement is because you think trans people shouldn't be allowed to peacefully live as their own gender without harassment, then that is bigoted.

I'll try to explain why I think she's a bigot, then. It'll take a few paragraphs because you have to piece some bits together, so bear with me.

J.K. Rowling once said she stands with Maya Forstater, right? That was kind of the start of it. She expressed that specifically after Maya Forstater was sacked for transphobia, challenged it in court, and a judge ruled against her, concluding: "it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society."

That started her down a rabbit hole to tweeting things like: "'People who menstruate'. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?" Of course, if you read about trans issues, you'll know that many trans men also menstruate (nonbinary people too!), and besides that, many women (both cis women and, obviously, trans women) do not menstruate. (That's why phrases like "people who menstruate" are sometimes used in medical contexts: it's to be specific to the people the advice applies to.)

So those were the two big transphobic tweets I remember off the top of my head. Now, you've got to understand, J.K. Rowling is obviously a well-off and relatively well-read person. She's not going to sound like a knuckle-dragging skinhead when she expresses views that are regressive. But just because someone sounds polite doesn't mean they are saying something respectful.

Ah, she wrote that essay too, didn't she? And it was full of things like:

"I'm concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families."

Again, that isn't expletive-laden insults. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I see why you'd be like, "ah, it's just a debate, she's debating". But what's she's written out is actually really quite nasty transphobic misinformation. I'll explain the two issues.

Firstly, she's wrong factually. Permanent detransitioning after beginning medical treatment is not common. Some people realise they are not trans while undergoing the (mandatory!) counselling that precedes medical treatment for gender dysphoria, but that's the system working as intended - that's why it's a part of the process! One study showed that only a small percentage of people experience regret for any reason after gender confirmation surgery. Another survey found that while 8% of trans people detransition, for the majority it's temporary (e.g. while living with unsupportive family). After sorting through the reasons for it, it turned out that only a fraction of a percent of people detransition because realise they are not actually trans after accessing medical treatment.

The second is in the framing. Look how she mentions "fertility" as a dog-whistle to anti-trans lobbyists who describe transitioning as a kind of "eugenics". It sounds very bad to say they are "being sterilised". The purpose of hormone treatment or surgery is not sterilisation. It's a similar rhetorical trick to, I dunno, describing an appendectomy as "being drugged and sliced open and having parts of your digestive system ripped out!".

So that's why I think J.K. Rowling is transphobic. It's not really because she disagrees with me about something, it's because she's said and done things that I evaluate as being transphobic.

One way you can tell J.K. Rowling isn't being entirely truthful with what she writes is that she struggles to provide high-quality sources for her statements. Here are some sources that back up what I said about detransition earlier. Swedish cohort 1960-2010; Amsterdam cohort 1972-2015; US Transgender Survey 2015 If you can't access the academic papers yourself and want to read them they should be on "Sci-Hub" (Google it).

aayl1 wrote:Also all these people rallying against "cancel culture" are also huge proponents of the free market.

Why can't the market freely decide not to buy something based on whatever the strawberry float factors it wants?

The people against cancel culture spent an entire week phoning OFCOM because they were offended over a dance.

Karl_ wrote:If you can't access the academic papers yourself and want to read them they should be on "Sci-Hub" (Google it).

This definitely sounds like a trap