#like there's generally no ethical consumption under capitalism

[brettdoesdiscourse]

Just by the way. Always be wary around people who say, "it's the boss' job to pay you a fair wage" when discussing tipping.

Because while this is absolutely true, it's usually not coming from a good place.

People who say this very often don't mean, "it's the boss' job to pay you a fair wage and they aren't, so I'm boycotting supporting businesses that exploit their workers."

A lot of people who say this actually mean, "it's the boss' job to pay you a fair wage and they aren't, but I'm going to continue using this service and not tip because it's not my problem that your job is exploiting you."

Always be wary around people who say, "it's the boss' job to pay you a fair wage" because a lot of times, they're just using it to make themselves feel better about their choices.

[mexfeld]

I think I genuinely might hate online leftism.

[scarletspider2the2ndpower]

Ben Reilly: Scarlet Spider (Vol. 1/2017), #4.

Writer: Peter David; Penciler: Mark Bagely; Inkers: John Dell and Andrew Hennessy; Colorist: Jason Keith; Letterer: Joe Caramagna

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

Ok I think one thing we need to start asking ourselves before we start talking about politics is "is this pragmatic or dogmatic?" Pragmatic things are achievable goals that will bring about some sort of tangible change. Dogmatic is demanding people behave a certain way or they're a bad person who needs to be condemned, or doing some big thing that won't work because of your conscience or something like that.

Let's have some examples: a general strike: a general strike is an attempt to halt all economic activity by withholding labor, usually for some sort of goal. A pragmatic approach to a general strike would be having several different labor organizations coordinating all to go on strike at the same time in order to fulfill certain demands. A dogmatic approach to a general strike would be calling for a strike on social media a week before it happens with no backing from any labor orgs and demanding people use their limited sick days and PTO rather than walking out with the support of their coworkers and cyber bullying people who question the efficacy of a strike without organized labor.

A boycott: a pragmatic approach to a boycott is targeting one or a few companies that everyone can avoid purchasing from in order to achieve a specific goal. Boycotting the companies that BDS has called for is a good example of this because BDS has the reach to coordinate what could be a critical mass of people. A dogmatic approach to boycotting is demanding that people boycott any organization doing something bad. Spoiler alert there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but people still need to eat. If I hear you yelling at people about McDonald's and then see you with that Sabra Hummus it's on sight.

Protest: a pragmatic approach is organizing a large group of people or many small groups of people in the same city to march for a cause. A dogmatic approach is that one guy counter protesting pride who is there by himself every single year telling us all we'll burn in hell.

And so on and so forth. If you want to make a difference you need people and you're not gonna get people the way you're acting.

[penisblast7000]

I know the phrase "[scene or quote] from [thing you like] changed my life forever" has mostly become a funny ha ha thing to say about your blorbos and your shows and the such, but the part in Dungeon Meshi about how eating is the privilege of the living radically changed my view on nutrition, ethical consumption of animal products under capitalism and life in general. I'm not joking even a little bit

[quartercirclejab]

generally speaking, i'm not really on-board with Remake's attempts to reframe the Shinra vs Avalanche conflict as some kind of "both sides have a point" thing. i do think there's some interesting narrative points to be made in exploring the idea that for average citizens of Midgar, it's not possible to engage with society in any meaningful way without becoming part of the system that's oppressing them (ie no ethical consumption under capitalism), and that Avalanche's efforts to engage in direct action are going to harm their friends and neighbors right alongside Shinra's leadership

but it does feel awful to me that the early parts of Remake are using Tifa to make this point, and doing so primarily in this "see???? shinra is people too" bootlicker kind of way

Tifa, of everyone in Avalanche we've met up to this point, should have fewer reservations than most about the work we're engaging in. if i'm being 100% honest, writing her as the one who's having second thoughts and voices this weirdly centrist "I don't want anyone to get hurt" attitude feels like an attempt to sand down her edges and make her more palatable as one of the main female leads of the game. taking away Tifa's righteous and justified anger makes her seem like a character with weaker convictions, and that's completely unfair to her

if anyone in Avalanche should have this opinion, shouldn't it be Jessie? in both Remake and the OG, she's wracked with guilt over the destruction her bomb caused, and goes out of her way to specify that it did way more damage than she intended. Remake also introduces us to her parents, Shinra employees and beneficiaries of plate living, as well as Jessie's ambitions to be a theater actress. now, granted, the industrial accident that left her father bedridden is given as her reasoning for joining up with Avalanche, but it's not as extreme as the reasons the others have, and at the end of the day, she and her family are still living pretty well. shouldn't she be the one whose heart isn't really in it?

[unicornachos]

Getting tired of seeing gotcha posts on Tumblr lately shitting all over vegans. They've gotten more common over the past few years...

Usually it'll be a post criticising a choice like maybe 3% of vegans actually make, or more usually an imaginary vegan they've pulled from thin air based on their own stereotypes and assumptions, followed by vibes along the lines of' "I know better, actually you don't care about sustainability or human rights at all! You're completely uneducated about (insert any topic here). Gotcha! Who's the morally superior one now, huh" Followed swiftly by the implication that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so why try at all.

Like yeah maybe there are some young idiot vegans who think buying pleather boots is ok for the environment, but every vegan I've ever met is more likely to get a second-hand pair of leather boots at an op-shop, because it's better for the environment. Every vegan I know has cared immensely about issues with soy and quinoa, about where their food comes from, about water use and microplastics, who picks their fruit and veg, and human rights in general. More than any non-vegans I know.

So why are we still constantly berated for not doing every single other thing that non-vegans want us to do? It's starting to feel like people have a very specific idea of vegans in their heads and need an outlet for weird anger and misery and frustration, and we're an easier punching bag than the large corporations and governments who dictate the rules of our late-stage capitalist hellscape, so why not have a go?

It really feels like people are unconsciously mad with themselves that they can't do more to help the world and possibly have unexamined issues or guilt with consuming animals themselves, and feel better about themselves after telling vegans they're just not doing their activism hard enough, and that everything they buy from the grocery store is a human rights violation, so really you're just as bad as the rest of us.

Idk man I just. It really feels like a lot of whataboutism most of the time from non-vegans who have a weird, skewed view of militant white vegans, while the majority of vegans (who aren't all white, might I add) are just living their lives, trying to make the world a slightly less shitty place. We should absolutely criticise racist white vegans. Take them the fuck down. I don't think you think vegans are who you think they are, though. Vegans are from intersecting identities just like everybody else, and come from many different countries. And also there are some silly, uninformed vegans with misplaced ideas, just like there are silly, uninformed non-vegans with misplaced ideas. But if you imagine a vegan to be someone you'd hate, it's a lot easier to ridicule them to make you feel like you're right and good.

I just wish that the people who make these posts and the folks who join in and/or reblog, would take a look at themselves and think about what they themselves are doing to prevent cruelty in this world, in any shape or form. Like are you painstakingly making sure you're not buying clothes with plastic in it? Are you checking the label of every food item you buy to make sure you knew where it came from? Do you only buy your veg from local farms within 10km or only eat things from your own garden? If not, idk what to tell you, but it's probably that you should give vegans a break if you're not doing all the very things you tell us we should be doing.

It just feels like a lot of misplaced anger. Why are you so, so enraged at vegans not being perfect people when you could be going and protesting outside the farms of migrant workers, if you're so pissed about where our fruit and veg comes from? If you're mad about fruit and veg, wait till you hear of the human rights abuses in abattoirs.

When someone tells a vegan that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, it just feels like a cop-out. You're not trying so why should anyone else, right? I just think people should be allowed to try to make the world better in their own ways, and not be ridiculed for not living up to an unattainable standard set my non-vegans.

Being vegan is about doing the least harm you can, within your means. It's not an on-off switch- it's a sliding scale of effort to do less harm. It's not stupid to acknowledge unnecessary suffering and choose not to take part in what's within your means to abstain from. Some vaccines still use animal products. Some of my medication has animal product ingredients. Am I going to go off my meds and become an anti-vaxxer? No. Do I think Indigenous Peoples should stop eating the foods they have always eaten, often for tens of thousands of years before colonisation? Of fucking course not. It's possible try to unsubscribe to shitty things in this world without doing it perfectly. The whole world would be a lot better if most people consumed 70% less animal products, than 2% of the world doing veganism perfectly.

I think most non-vegans are too afraid of what they might find out if they actually research animal agriculture so they stubbornly make excuses not to bother. So that's their choice, but until you're as perfect as how you claim we should be, literally shut the fuck up and find something more productive to do with your time, like actively try to fight against the very things you think we've all somehow decided to turn a blind eye to. Because I bet the majority of people consuming whatever unethical product you've decided on aren't vegans.

Coming across one silly vegan on the internet doesn't mean you have permission now to write off the crucial need for our planet to massively reduce animal agriculture, and the possibility that you might potentially be able to opt out of it. Criticising veganism doesn't mean you've absolved yourself of any harm you yourself are doing, and also doesn't absolve you of finding ways to do less harm to people, animals, and the planet.

And if you're pissed about vegans having moral superiority, I'd really like to see non-vegans examine their own moral superiority they seem to feel they have over vegans.

Ok signing off lol

[ranmagender]

ive never been vehemently against ai, frankly my love of open culture sort of clashes with being 100% against it, as does my disdain for copyright in general. more concerning to me is the mass amount of energy consumption and the lack of consent in the scraping for training data.

that and im generally against whatever tech bros are into at every moment. can genAI be ethical? i mean sure it can but things like chatGPT i dont think are just from like i said, environmental and consent factors alone.

frankly im just sick of techbros acting like its like one step away from sentience and anyone who doesnt love it draining power grids is just hindering progress

i get it, no ethical consumption under capitalism and what not but thats my like main problem with it. if creators had to opt in and give consent to have their work be used in datasets i think that would be fine and there are some ai models that do that

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

hello! I really liked your character analysis, especially Hobie and the interactions with Diane (she´s very groovy and beautiful n.n) so, I wanted to ask you if you think Hobie could make good friends with someone with a symbiote and the symbiote itself, my spidersona (symbiotesona?) is one of those. I know there´s some story between Hobie and symbiotes in his universe but I couldn't find the comics where it is explained.

You're amazing and keep going!

Oh absolutely!

Especially for Hobie - He has a symbiote dog!

Hobie is accepting of everyone (he's the best I love him) even symbiotes!!

In his universe, V.E.N.O.M was used in his universe as a weapon for President Osborn's police force - but I think Hobie would see the underlying greed and cruelty of the cops as the problem, and not the symbiote.

If anything I think he'd really respect your sona -

Cause that takes a lot of mental fortitude, and moral and strength in general so he'd be like 'That's fucking metal.'

If there's side effects, or conflict between your sona and the symbiote - I think he'd always want to help, and would like, speak to them as separate people lol

He knows that sharing the same body doesn't make them the same person, and that your sona was full person before the symbiote, so he would see them as a Duo - like two partners in crime.

He'd be really careful about his music playing and volume cause he wouldn't want to hurt your sona, so he would always give a heads-up.

Diane would be SO interested - and she'd probably have to think about SO MUCH, get prepared for a lot of questions!

Diane is pretty clever - but a little naive, so she'd be solidly in the 'All Aliens Come in Peace.' Star Trek started in 1966 - so Diane basically grew up with it around.

A symbiote is something alien, so it can't be murderous and evil - even if it eats people. It's not from here!! Don't be mean to them!!!

If your symbiote eats people, or needs meat, Diane would..honestly not be that freaked out. She'd have to think about it.

"So, Do you eat people on your planet?"

"Well, I guess that's not too bad. I mean..some people have a pet pig, some people eat pig, some do both. So it's like..the same, right? Not that you see humans as pets, you know -"

If humans can not snap and eat their pets and stuff, maybe this symbiote knows food from friends like them! If anything, Diane would be upset if people rushed to judge your sona OR the symbiote.

Her defense : "They didn't ask to come to this planet!" or Hobie's favorite -

"Why are you shaming them! They're not the only immoral ones. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism!!"

Hobie knows she is just repeating something she heard him say one time - and that is NOT what that phrase means, but he thinks its funny, so he lets her say it.

The three (four - actually) could have so much fun!

Hobie would probably get them hearing protectors so they can hang out backstage without getting hurt.

And y'all can deck it out with cool stickers and punk marker graffiti!

And although beef and stuff probably doesn't compare, Diane would still try making stuff like beef tartare, koi soi, or other raw meat dishes, just to see if they like 'em!

She LOVES sushi, so sashimi is a must to try - She'd want everyone to feel included at the potluck - it's only right, nobody leaves hungry!!!!

[Also thank you so much for the sweet words!!! I know I take literally forever to go through my inbox (it takes me very very long and im gonna point at adhd) but these things really brighten my day and give me the inspiration to keep sharing. It means a lot, thank you!!]

[pokytoad]

Okay yeah "no ethical consumption under capitalism" but its also worth noting that like,, as hopeless as climate activism is for the general population,, not littering and not contributing to actively detrimental companies, etc, can help your LOCAL environment. Something I've learned as a Certified Conservationist is that focusing on your local area is MASSIVELY more beneficial than getting nihilistic about the entire globe. Small changes make big impacts.

Reusable straws won't save the turtles, but keeping plastic litter off the streets will help your local environment heal.

[joannerowling]

What does death of the author mean exactly?!?!?

To put it briefly, "Death of the Author" is an essay by literary theorist Roland Barthes, published first (in French and English - simultaneously, not as a coincidence) in 1967. It belongs to post-modernism in that it aims to deconstruct an idea: the idea that a text should be analysed and interpreted through its author's life. Barthes argued that literature transcends its author's (intended or subconscious) meaning, that there are as many interpretations of a text as there are readers, each equal in worth, and that the very act of reading is part of creating.

Tumblr users, having generally not read the original essay (if they have heard of Barthes at all), tend to interpret the words "Death of the Author" as: "i don't like this writer, but i can pretend they didn't write this book i like, because it doesn't matter who wrote a book anyways, the Author is Dead", with a dash of "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and other such t-shirt slogans. The dumbest understand it as: "i will symbolically kill the Author i dislike by writing very bad fanfiction."

[nkjemisin]

Things in my ask box #2

Got a new one for the “questions that might catch the poster some flak” bin. The poster asks, “What were you thinking when you wrote ‘The Ones Who Stay and Fight?’“ There was more to the question, but that’s what it boils down to (and I did clarify with the ask-er that this is what they wanted to know most).

I don’t generally like to discuss readers’ interpretations of my stories. Art is subjective, and what one person loves another might loathe, sometimes for the exact same reasons. Also, half the time I don’t even know what I’m doing; sometimes I don’t notice a theme in my work until years later when a reviewer mentions it, or I re-read it long after publication. My mind works in mysterious ways, even to me. But since you asked what I was thinking and not to confirm/deny a particular interpretation, I’ll try to explain.

(First, for those who haven’t read it, Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” is her most famous short story, and probably one of the most famous short stories in the world. There’s a whole subgenre of responses to it, because it provokes such powerful reactions in readers, and I’m no exception. [I’m a huge fan of Le Guin, if you didn’t know from me screaming about her to anyone who would listen for like 10 years now.] If you haven’t read the story, you should; it’s probably available somewhere online. There are a million ways to interpret the story, and if you poke around for reviews or lit crit analyses you’ll find feminist readings, anti-capitalist readings, mythopoeic/folklorist readings, and more. My story does not make sense if you haven’t read her story; it functions solely in conversation with Le Guin’s. Think of it as fanfic, if that helps.)

I’m not a literary scholar and I don’t pretend to be, but I’ve always leaned into the anti-capitalist reading of “Omelas.” Anybody who’s reading this in the developed world is already living in Omelas. Every time we buy a pair of Nikes, we’re contributing to sweatshops, child labor, migration crises, pollution... our own version of the abused child locked in a cellar. No ethical consumption under capitalism. Also, I lean anti-capitalist with “Omelas” because I think often of this quote by Le Guin:

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”

Bad. Ass. I want to be her when I grow up.

That said, when I decided to respond to this as a writer -- by writing back to it -- I was more interested in anti-racist readings of Omelas. Those interpretations don’t seem to be as popular, but at the time I wrote my story, I was trying to process the absolute bombardment of open racism and every other kind of bigotry that seemed to be metastasizing in the wake of Trump’s election. I pondered the world that these people seemed to want:  a world of war and endless suffering, doomed to end in extinction for us all (tho some believe Jesus or Jeff Bezos will whisk them away before things get too bad). I wondered what it would take to come back from that world, if we went down that path but managed to survive as a species. So to my mind, Omelas works well as a metaphor for conservatives’ (and fascists’) endless fantasies of the world that was, in which everything was wonderful before the “corruptions” of liberalism destroyed it -- corruptions like equality, diversity, intellectualism, religious freedom, and democracy. This is the “again” that the “make America great...” people embrace -- a “better” world that never existed. We all know that in the 1950s, there were plenty of kids in cellars, worse than today: BIPOC kids, queer kids, disabled kids, poor kids. If America’s wealthy and powerful get what they want, they will get to live in a utopian fantasy; the rest of us go in the cellar.

The society these people want is one that further-codifies the idea that some people are lesser. Some people aren’t as fully people, basically, and therefore don’t deserve rights, basic necessities, compassion, or life. Therefore I decided to make my “utopia” (scare quotes because, like Omelas, Um-Helat really isn’t) an anti-bigoted society, which has instead chosen to codify the idea that no one is lesser. Instead of its happiness depending on limited oppression, I wanted my “utopia” to depend on limited suppression of that insidious idea.

Suppression is no better than oppression, by the way. We’re used to oppression, so maybe it doesn’t seem so bad... to some. But both ways of maintaining these not-quite-utopias require harm to be done to some for the benefit of others. Omelas chose to limit the harm to a random child, and to a lesser degree to all its citizens, who must morally compromise themselves in order to enjoy their lives. Um-Helat chooses to limit the harm to those who’ve internalized some people are lesser -- the intolerant, per Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance -- and to the “social workers,” who must morally compromise themselves in order for the other citizens of Um-Helat to thrive. I was also playing with the idea that there’s nowhere to walk away to. Imperialism and capitalism have made pretty much the whole world Omelas, in real life. So how does any society grapple with its own complicity with evil? Omelas is better off than our own world, and Um-Helat, because people can walk away, there.

It’s entirely possible that I failed to do what I tried to do with this story -- first because I tried to do so much. “Omelas” is a deceptively simple argument with deep, complex points being made; my attempt to answer had to cover a lot of territory. Second because Le Guin was a master of the short form, while I’m pretty much a dabbler, and third because this was also my first time trying pastiche, and it probably shows. But I believe in shooting my literary shot, hit or miss, and I’m glad that I did. It turned out better than I expected.

So that’s what I was thinking. ☺️

[charmanderxerneas]

can people get it thru their heads that you can like fnaf while hating scott cawthon? Imo its not fucking immoral to like fnaf like it is with harry potter or some shit

Like. Yes scott is a republican who gets money from fnaf, thats not good that money is going to republican candidates

but first of all like. theres no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism (as much as i hate it: i assume at least some of my money is going to republicans from buying at certain stores or restaurants or something). You cannot exist without at least SOME of your money going towards that, it sucks.

and he at least claims to love all his fans regardless of gender or race or sexuality (does not excuse his donations or mean hes a good person) but at least its better than like. jkr who has antisemitic and racism BAKED into her series lore and who actively spouts anti trans hatespeech. if you play fnaf at freddys its not like. shoving republican ideas down your throat. and hes letting steel wool and just other people in general the series now, stepping down from it (though of course hes still behind the scenes, his story so his lore goes).

i just. ugh you can like something flawed with a flawed creator 😭 its okay. its not as bad as something awful like harry potter and theres usually Some flaw behind every creator yknow? all that said i dont like scott. dont get me wrong, im not defending him. i Dont Like Scott. but grahhh makes me mad that i cant enjoy fnaf in peace without people crying at me about it

(i am trans dont fucking come at me about that shit. i just needed to rant)

[hsvh-hp]

Hi! Thanks for all the responses -- I hadn't realized how many chapters I'd gotten through since your last round until I saw the emails lmao

I was wondering, in regards to this:

And omg, I totally feel you on being a trans person in the HP fandom. It's very weird how my tumblr dash is set up. I have mutuals still from old fandoms who are queer, and I feel so ostracized from them at times when they toe the line of 'anybody in the HP fandom supports JKR, you're a bad person if you're still engaging with it'. I'll spare you the essay on why I disagree with that, but oddly the safest place I feel on the internet as a trans person is in the HP fandom. Which is weird at face value, I suppose, given what JKR is doing, but we really are separate from her. I've yet to see substantial evidence that fandom, which is infamous for generating zero revenue, is floating trans peoples' demise. It's just a thought crime, I guess.

if you would, perhaps, not spare me the essay? lol

I feel the same sort of ostracization which is especially frustrating when I am in such "thought crimes are fake!" circles, and I'm interested in your perspective, if you want to give it!

Sure, I’ll offer my perspective on it! This is probably best broken down into bullet points:

1. JKR was already a billionaire before she came out as a TERF.

There is nothing in the world that will change this status. Even if every single person currently engaging with her various IPs immediately dropped them, JKR would still have a billion plus dollars to drop on anti-trans movements and whatever. A billion dollars is immensely difficult to picture. The easiest way is to think like this: if you make $50,000 a year, the equivalent of her dropping $75,000 the other day is you spending $3.75. How often do you spend 0.0075% of your income and give it any thought? JKR’s wealth is not directly tied to ‘levels of fandom engagement’.

Which leads to…

2. Boycotts don’t work.

Sorry. They don’t. Not against someone this politically powerful. If they did, the flood of people out of the HP fandom in 2020 would have had a measurable effect. What did have a measurable effect? People not going to watch the Fantastic Beast movies (because they were hot trash lmao). Not giving JKR any more money works in the sense that it cripples her future projects, but it has zero effect on what’s already in her purse.

Also, think of boycotts this way: wasn’t it hilarious watching conservatives try to boycott the Barbie movie, Nike, Bud Light, and whatever else they’ve systematically locked on to? But so then why do progressives/the left/whoever think it’s going to work the other way? Like with Hogwarts Legacy? Just don’t interact with the media, dude. And if you do, pirate it.

3. Fandom is not mainstream. I have never seen any data to substantiate that participating in a fandom directly correlates to dollars for the IP. Copyright literally prevents that from happening. To bring up to popular saying, “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”, fandom exists outside of capitalism—for me, at least, as a fan fiction writer. This is a hobby to me. I have never seen a red cent for any of the hours of work I’ve put into my fics.

And I can probably guarantee that no one has stumbled upon Harry Potter through me, lol. They didn’t read one of my fics and go, ‘you know, I should check out what source material this is coming from’. Harry Potter is so well-known that there’s no way they came in blind.

Also, the TERF discourse is very much an online thing. I work retail irl and I’ve had conversations with customers who’ll say “you know, I really don’t get all this hubbub against trans people” but are too boomer to be anything more than tangentially aware that Harry Potter is a Thing. Like, ‘oh yeah, my kids read those books when they were coming out, but I never bothered’. One of my employees bought a set of the HP books because they were on a wicked deal at Costco, and when we were discussing it I told her that while I still enjoyed HP, I wasn’t comfortable giving JKR more money because she’s extremely transphobic and donates a lot of money to anti-trans causes. My employee was horrified and said that had she known that, she wouldn’t have bought the books. Lots of people just don’t know!

Which takes me to…

4. This type of online activism isn’t effective.

I’m talking specifically about being anti-Harry Potter or anti-JKR. Falling into those two categories does not automatically make you pro-trans. This was pretty blatantly obvious back when the books were being burned for promoting witchcraft. As far as fighting for trans peoples’ rights, screaming until you’re blue in the face about how anybody who engages with Harry Potter is a traitor and JKR BAD is wasting time better spent doing something productive - something that could actually benefit trans people rather than…I don’t know…virtue signalling that their blog or twitter account is a safe space?

5. I personally do not feel welcomed or vouched for by these people.

Listen, I’m going to break myself down into all my stupid little categories. I’m trans. Autistic. Intersex. Aromantic. Asexual. Basically, all the things that people love to try and cast out of the queer community, whether that means they’re trying to split LGBTQIA+ at the T or Q.

The anti-Harry Potter stuff, as far as attacking the fandom, feels like the latest strain of purity politics to me. As I’ve laid out above, abandoning HP will not right the wrongs of JKR in any measurable or tangible way. Boycotts don’t work. Fandom does not feed JKR’s coffers, and destroying the fandom will not cripple her. There are trans people inside the HP fandom, and what of us? Are we traitors? Are we not ‘really’ trans, because obviously we don’t care about the current political climate? Are we just confused and need to be enlightened as to what harm we’re doing? Where have I heard this rhetoric before?

One small thing, tangentially related:

6. I don’t care what JKR says about how engaging with Harry Potter tells her about who her ‘supporters’ are.

Seriously? She’s a lying dirtbag, and I’m just supposed to take her word on this? This is the one thing she just so happens to be right about?

When she started spouting TERF shit, I was really saddened by the writers who, upon leaving the fandom, also deleted their works in protest. Seeing as the majority of the HP fandom is queer, I’m sure that JKR was very pleased with the amount of queer media erasure that occurred. Why did we do that for her?

7. I believe JKR actually seethes and malds over the prospect of her fandom being queer and producing queer content.

As a writer, there’s a special kind of pain that comes from someone not quite interpreting your work the way you would have wanted them to. What do you think JKR’s first reaction was when she first learned about the Harry/Draco ship? The Draco/Hermione ship? If she didn’t live in a stone castle, I bet she would’ve punched a hole in the wall.

So, yeah. Transing and gaying all of her characters is a pretty nice way to get to her in a way that she can’t legally or financially retaliate. Every time she screams ‘WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?!’ at the queer people in her fandom, a trans person’s crops are watered.

8. The HP setting is very welcoming to trans people.

Potions exist that can change your body. Enough said.

That the Harry Potter books never really says anything specifically about trans people (NOTE: obviously JKR’s prejudices even back then showed through, but this isn’t about that) leaves the question on the table. Obviously trans people exist in the Harry Potter setting, because they exist everywhere. So, how did they never get any page time?

Well, who says they didn’t? In a setting where potions exist to change your body, trans people are just…people. I don’t even think that they would have a marginalized identity because gender dysphoria would be something very easily treated. Think of it like someone who takes medication for blood pressure. They need the medication, it’s life-saving, and while there isn’t a magical pill to ‘cure’ high blood pressure, it can be managed. The magical world revels in being strange. Why would being trans, while being considered strange here in the ‘Muggle’ world, be anything other than normal there? Why can’t it be?

And then there are Metamorphmagi. People who can literally change themselves at will! If that isn’t a trans person’s dream, I don’t know what is. I would personally love the option of being the biggest, hairiest dude with a dick so big an erection would make me black out, and then ultra femme and delicate the next.

Last on this point, Harry never notes anyone specifically trans in the text (NOTE: touching on things like the physical descriptions of Rita Skeeter and Marge Dursley, JKR tends to do the ugly=bad person thing. Although she describes Rita and Marge as mannish in appearance, they aren’t trans characters. They’re women that JKR wants to frame as bad people. Like I said above, this is JKR’s prejudice showing through). If Harry never notes anyone as specifically trans, that probably means that it’s impossible to tell at face value. The same as blood pressure medication, to return to that analogy. How do you know someone is on them? They tell you. You see the pill bottle and happen to know what that medication is for. They complain about side effects. They complain about the symptoms that led them going to the doctor in the first place.

9. Queer HP fandom content can potentially be how a Harry Potter fan realizes that they’re queer (or that queer people are just regular folks).

Hey, the first one happened to me!

If someone comes into the Harry Potter fandom unaware of JKR’s politics - maybe they were gifted the books for their birthday or happened to catch the movies on TV - it’s good actually that this person doesn’t fall right into an echo chamber of JKR’s politics. I’ll be happily here to correct her record in a way that isn’t shaming or policing them.

Anyway, I think that’s everything lol. To summarize:

- The HP Fandom is a neutral setting. Engaging with it doesn’t help JKR, and not engaging with it doesn’t help trans people. Just don’t spend money on official HP merch.

- If you want to be a pro-trans activist or trans political ally, please just ignore JKR and put all your focus on the real world.

- There are trans people in the HP fandom who are left feeling awkward and uncomfortable due to virtue signalling.

- Generating queer HP content is good, actually.

[bread-and-roses-too]

I've talked before about how, while there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, there is standout UNethical consumption that should be avoided so here are some tips I use as someone with a general vendetta against Amazon:

use the shopping tab on google instead of going straight to amazon when you want to buy something.

[image ID: an image of a google search for "cool lamps". The cursor is hovering over the second tab to the right under the search bar, which is labeled "shopping".]

this will allow you to look through a variety of sellers that sell the item you're looking for. You can also sort by seller, price, condition, and other factors using this feature.

look everywhere else first. I pretty much only click on Amazon when I've exhausted all of the other options on the shopping tab.

The Better Business Bureau is your friend. Some non-Amazon websites can be sketchy as hell. If the business is based in the U.S., Mexico, or Canada, the BBB is basically the mother of all review sites. If you suspect a company is suppressing negative reviews, or if they don't post them at all, check with the BBB to see if the business has a page and if people have complained.

You can also look up "is [website] a scam". This is a bit jankier and less official but it does work. Usually if a website is conning people out of their money someone has posted to somewhere complaining about it.

Choose smaller sellers if applicable.

[image ID: an image of a white origami-style ceiling light made to look like a lapu lapu or grouper fish. the seller is VasiliLights on Etsy, and the price is $243.18 and shipping is $34.29].

Obviously if you're looking for a specific item it's probably only sold on a certain store's website, but if you're looking for unique pieces, it's actually fairly fulfilling to buy from a smaller seller. When you buy from places like Ebay and Etsy, or from smaller websites owned by the seller, you're handing most of that money over to a real person like you who will go and spend it on things they want and need. Sellers are also genuinely happy and grateful when something sells, my mom has been a seller on Ebay for years and she still gets excited when she makes a sale.

If an Etsy seller has a personal website, buy from there instead. This is more of an anti-corporation tip than a specific anti-Amazon tip.

[Image ID: a screenshot of the Etsy shop page for neurodelightful that also displays the address for their website, neurodelightful.com].

Sites like Etsy still take big fees from their sellers which can make business more challenging and result in sellers not being paid properly for their work. Personal sites help reduce this so sellers will often promote them on their shop page. If you like your money to go into the hands of real people and not corporations, buy from their personal website instead.

Take notice when artists advertise their shops here on Tumblr. It can be easy to school by someone asking for money but a lot of people on here sell genuinely amazing art. @/cypric-rat-hyperfixation, @/dappermouth, @/pangur-and-grim, @/pidgie-core, @/ultrainfinitepit, and @/pikaole are just a few people I can think of who sell their art and it's usually cheaper than buying the same mass produced painting that everyone has in their house.

Switch out your Amazon wishlist for a Throne wishlist. One of my biggest pet peeves about leaving amazon was no longer having a wishlist to display on social media that people could actually buy from. Throne filled that role for me. Copy a link for the item you want, click "add gift", paste the link, adjust the price if needed, and bam, now anyone can but it for you. You can even set up crowdfunding for items costing over $10. It's also sex worker friendly and allows you to have NSFW items on your list if you choose!

Finally, understand that there are just some things you won't be able to find elsewhere. Don't beat yourself up for buying a non-essential item from Amazon once in a blue moon. Amazon is a massive overarching corporation that can be extremely hard to avoid especially if you need to shop for things at cheaper prices. The overall goal is to reduce the money given to them and increase the money given to other sellers to send a message that our favor with Amazon is waning and they need to change things to win it back.

[dukeofriven]

The adage that ‘there is no ethical consumption under capitalism’ never bites with more obvious frequency than with podcasts. You love your favourite podcasters: you want them to make content and be successful at it and earn a living, but short of having the sort of fanbase who can really pump-up a Patreon—and I mean really pump-up a Patreon because there’s no pension in podcasting—you’re going to end-up turning to advertising. And the companies who have monopolized podcast advertising, at least in the genres that people here on tumblr are likely to listen to, are really, really scummy. They know their audience. They know the level of tech-saviness and geekery and the general level of disposable income, which means data-miner Honey can try and prey on your desire for deals to try and suck you dry of information they sell at huge profits to retailers. ‘Leftover Warehouse Garbage’ monthly loot boxes can prey on your sense of exclusivity and penchant for nerdy knickknacks. Chronic employee abuser and environmental disaster Blue Apron can prey on your insecurity about having the energy and skill to cook decent meals. Overpriced and under-contented subscription service Squarespace is there to gouge you for services other companies provide for far more affordable cost—and so on. Right now I am listening to a podcast where the poor host, so as to make a living as a creator, has to do a song-and-dance for AirBnB, that thing that’s made life harder for every person in the Western world struggling with the housing crisis. It’s horrific. It’s horrific to be advertised-to by these disgusting companies—I could be here forever just talking about the app-based ones alone and how they sell you a ‘product’ to cover-up the fact that the product they actually sell is you and your personal information. (Or I could do a side-bar to Youtubers and the surely-some-kind-of-money-laundering-operation-because-no-one-alive-actually-plays-it Raid Shadow Legends).

‘There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism’ doesn’t just mean physical, material products, how you can’t buy a chocolate bar without touching exploitative food production practices, or how the light-up eyes in your Pokemon keychain are LEDs from one of four massive factories in China that chew their workers up and spit them them out to die. It also means understanding that art itself comes pre-compromised if the artists wishes to live in anything other than ‘principled’ ascetic poverty. It means that plenty of progressive podcast collectives with progressive podcasts can’t really do the level of ‘due diligence’ we’d hope for on their sponsors because then they would have no sponsors. There’s no way to win, and every proposition is a losing one.  Commercia delenda est.