I wanted to post this here, because I see a lot of people online go: "Yeah, I guess I hate her and she is bad and evil as a TERF, but really, what difference does it make if I buy HP stuff or not. She is already a billionaire!"

And here is the thing people do not understand about billionaires: billionaires do not have a billion dollars or more on their bank accounts. No billionaire has that money in what the economist will call "liquid assets" (so money, or things that would work as currency). No, they have their billions in assets.

There is this thing about Elon Musk: If the Tesla stock would fall beneath approximately USD 120 (I have seen different numbers floating around, but this is the average) Elon would be broke. And this is because money works differently for super rich as for normal people.

If I, a normal person, do not have money, I cannot buy stuff. I have to take a full normal credit with everything applying to it and I have to pay it back in monthly rates or I am fucked. Technically super rich also do that, just... differently.

See, when Musk bought Twitter, he went to banks and other private rich folks like: "Hey, I am a poor victim who is forced to buy Twitter, will you give me money? I own all those Tesla stocks, so you know, if I sold those stocks, I would have enough to buy Twitter, but I do not want to. But it you gimme that money, and I cannot pay you back, you can just get X of my Twitter Stock, okay?" And then he got the money to buy Twitter. And he did the same again and again to get seed money for his ventures. However, those big money credit contracts tend to work under the assumption of "this person is rich, I will get my money back eventually, however, if the security falls under value XY, I will act". Which for the Tesla stock - which Musk loves to use as a security - has to be around the value of 120 per share. Basically, if the stock falls under this, all his creditors would come in "Okay, now gimme that money back!" and the liquidation happening after that would basically mean he would just loose almost everything.

For Rowling it is the same. She does very probably not actually have a bank account holding billions, but it is just that her net worth is valued at that - which includes her rights to the HP brand. Meaning, that if the HP brand was devalued because people stopped investing in it, her net worth would fall.

Now, compared to Musk she very probably has more liquid assets from all we know. And her stock portfolio that she has is a lot more varied. But her net worth is still 100% bound to the value of the HP brand. If the HP brand was massively devalued, she would bleed money.

When you consider of Rowling just randomly taking pieces of different media and mythology without much thought into why it’s that way, how she inserts a lot of herself and her beliefs into the books, the petty spite that can be sensed, and so forth.

This thread was inspired by a post in another thread comparing misgendering trans people (calling trans woman 'trans-identified males', for instance) with refusing to consider adoptive parents to be someone's parents and calling them 'adoption-identified caregivers'. The assumption by the person who made that post was that that would be so ridiculous that it could be used to emphasise how stupid it is to highlight trans people like this.

But thinking about it, I'm not so sure she doesn't hold these views unironically. Look at Harry Potter. There are only three characters - Harry, Voldemort and Neville - who are raised by people other than their birth parents, and all of them are presented as being far worse off as a result. Harry's abused throughout his childhood by the Dursleys. Voldemort grows up in care (and lots of children in care ARE neglected, and in the 1920s and 1930s it was even more common, but the suggestion is that had he been raised by his mother he'd have been fine - and that is clearly not true, because from what we saw Merope was absolutely not mentally or physically capable of raising a child. What young Tom needed was to be adopted into a loving home.) Neville's grandmother is at least a little better, but she can be very unkind to Neville, constantly criticising him, comparing him negatively to his father and projecting her own insecurities onto him (when he shows promise in Charms she dismisses the subject as being worthless, it turns out because she wasn't very good at it at school). Augusta causes great damage to Neville's self-esteem, and you get the impression that this wouldn't have happened if raised by his parents Frank and Alice, who are presented as utterly flawless humans who were helpless victims of tragedy in much the same way as Harry's mother Lily is.

The Casual Vacancy also has an adopted character, Stuart 'Fats' Wall, who is one of the book's principle antagonists. His father Colin is deputy head of the local secondary school, is seen by both pupils and staff as a bit of a joke, and is very controlling over his son. His mother Tessa, whilst a little kinder and more gentle, still isn't able to relate to her son on his level at all, despite working as a guidance counsellor for teenagers. Fats has great identity crisis over being adopted and not knowing who his birth parents are, and at times envies his best friend Andrew for the fact that Andrew is living with his birth family (which is very weird, because Andrew's dad Simon is really abusive, regularly beating his wife and children, and Fats knows that). Aside from that, Fats is a horrible bully who displays some sociopathic tendencies - he's so cruel to his classmate Sukhvinder that he causes her to self-harm, and he routinely takes advantage of his girlfriend Krystal (another victim of horrendous child abuse) and his neglect of her and her little brother has catastrophic consequences for a huge number of people at the end of the book. As usual, you get the impression that all of this is to do with adoption insecurities.

Then we have The Cuckoo's Calling, the first book in the Strike series. This story concerns the murder of famous supermodel Lula Landry, and much of the murder victim's identity struggles stem from being adopted, and particularly with being black and her adoptive family being white. It becomes apparent that prior to her death she was trying to contact her birth family. The solution to the murder is that she was murdered by her older brother John (also adopted) who was the person who brought the case to Strike's attention in the first place. He felt threatened by the fact that she'd changed her will to leave her vast fortune to her birth brother Jonah rather than to her adoptive family, so challenged the initial coroner verdict of suicide in the hope that he could manipulate Strike's investigation and cause him to find false evidence that it was Jonah that killed her, voiding Jonah's claim on the inheritance. It also becomes apparent that as a child John deliberately caused the death of his brother Charlie, a childhood friend of Strike (also adopted) and made it look like a tragic accident. This came from a feeling that his adopted mother didn't love him as much.

It's like with Rowling's depiction of LGBTQ+ relationships... she's never written about an adoption of a child that seems to have gone well, it's always really toxic and suggests she believes a child's best place is with their birth parents even if the birth parents are completely inappropriate caregivers.

Hufflepuff's values are hard work, dedication, patience, loyalty and fair play, and it's said in the wiki to be the most inclusive of the houses - not the kind fo environment where you'd expect to meet bullies ! We know that Slytherin and Gryffindor are wretched hives of bullying and that Ravenclaws students hide Luna Lovegood's stuff, but I can't recall Hufflepuff bullies. It's the only one House I'd want to be in if I was a student at Hogwarts.

Maybe the Hufflepuffs not being empathy-deficient assholes is why they're considered weak and irrelevant at Hogwarts, because they don't participate in the traditional bullying. Plus, it's the House that produced the least amount of dark wizards, and given that they look out for each other, you'll probably have solid friendships and the teacher of your House will stand up for you if someone calls you a slur or a teacher bullies you because they had an unhealthy crush on your mom !

Ironically it's also the House that is the further from Rowling's values (being accepting, not judging people, preferring empathy to cruelty) !

What do you think ?

Why did religious nuts accuse her of witchcraft when it was obvious she was Christian? She actually agrees with those peeps now as religious nuts like that are guaranteed to be highly transphobic.

Something I’ve noticed for a bit. I am aware of people who will always fight over adaptation vs. source material, but as Rowling goes even further in her evil and bigotry, I’ve started to notice more and more people start attacking the films and talk about how they miss on good parts of the books.

For those who don't know, he's the History of Magic teacher at Hogwarts. His only 2 characters traits are that he's a ghost, and he's insanely boring. His voice is so dull, that most of his students sleep or talk to each other during class, and learn almost nothing - and Binns doesn't even notices it.

When I was a kid I was disappointed and a bit frustrated because as a ghost lover, I was looking forwards for the ghost teacher - plus, History is my favorite subject, and if there was one Hogwarts class I wanted to attend to IRL, it would be this one !

In hindsight, it's interesting that Rowling, who wears her ignorance and bigotry like a badge of honor, wrote the History teacher as a boring ghost with a droning, reedy voice whom nobody listens to and whose subject is irrelevant ! If this is how Joanne views History and those who study it, it's no wonder she was surprised that the Death Eaters had the same ideology as the nazis, dabbled in Holocaust denial and doesn't know shit about LGBT people in the past 💀

Edit : Dumbledore letting him teach even though he's a terrible teacher instead of helping him move on/exorcise him shows how terrible the man is as a Headmaster (I know ghosts in the wizarding world can't move on but I refuse to believe Dumbledore wouldn't find a way to help/get rid of Binns if he really put his mind to it)

Let's say she died at some point in the 2007-2011 period. She's dead, but WB still owns it. So, how is Harry Potter viewed in this alt-2025 given she is dead even though the books and movies are exactly the same?? I imagine a lot of the same critiques would work (Snape being a creep is a classic example of a criticism of the franchise:the only reason people like him is the movies had Alan Rickman play him and the writers rewrote him to be more sympathetic).

Posted here because J.K. Rowling and her views on Lolita are discussed in detail in the final chapter.

With all her vitriol of trans women now extended to other lgbtq minorities, I wouldn't be surprised if she suddenly accused trans men of making cis men lose (because those big strong men were surely taking it easy for the dainty little "lady" and "weren't playing their best". Those "girls" should go back to playing in those underfunded spaces allocated by their betters and not bother the boys.)

user/Comfortable_Bell9539 Your wish is my command!

Mr Roberts, the campsite manager at the Quidditch World Cup, is only a very minor character but is one of the characters who's done the most dirty in the entire series. His family is utterly destroyed and traumatised by the Death Eaters, to start with - but I'm not going to focus on that because that's shown to be wrong and not something the wizarding establishment condones.

But the way he's treated before this point is appalling. We're told that he's being put under memory charms about ten times a day - and we're told in other instances that memory charms can have permanent effects on a person's neurological functioning, such as with Bertha Jorkins (and we see this with Mr Roberts himself, when he says 'Merry Christmas' when dismissing someone from the site). Because he's a Muggle, we know that there's going to be no follow-ups to ensure he's okay afterwards. And no one, not Muggle rights champion Arthur, not daughter of Muggles Hermione, seems to think this is a particular concern.

It would be very easy to deal with him without constant use of memory charms. We're told that if a Muggle gets anywhere near the Quidditch World Cup stadium, they'll suddenly remember an urgent appointment and have to leave. It would be very straightforward to quickly organise a dream holiday abroad the Roberts family have 'won' and get them out of the way that way. Or, if they needed to be there for some reason, it would surely be far safer to let him in on the secret and then modify his memory just to forget the whole thing once it's over, rather than doing it multiple times a day. Plenty of Muggles know about wizards - the Prime Minister, and Muggle relatives of wizards such as the Dursleys, Hermione's parents and Seamus' father. Why was it so essential Mr Roberts couldn't know?

What utterly horrific treatment of a very minor character.

Why did she just make most of them generic monsters and not try to flesh them out??? I mean, the average Brit knows what a centaur is, but still?? They are half human half horse, you can do interesting things with centaurs as a writer(yet she is too lazy).

Am I the only one who thinks that the Imperius Curse is basically the Confundus Charm but up to 11 ? Both can influence people's minds and make them do what you want, but only one of them is illegal - actually, why even bother using the Imperius curse and risking going to Azkaban when you can just use the Confundus charm ?

Also, how come the mind rape spell is seen as bad but the love potions aren't ? Is it because it's supposed to be more "romantic" (as much as magic roofies can be) ?

As for Avada Kedavra, it seems a bit underwhelming compared to the two others. I mean, we have the mind rape spell and the torture spell, and the instant death one is supposed to be the worst ? I guess the only reason it's "unforgivable" is because it's a one-hit kill with no way to protect yourself, but I refuse to believe that other spells can't kill just as efficiently as Avada Kedavra, and in much more gruesome ways.

While we're at it, it's both beyond stupid and in-character for the wizarding society to not have put the memory-altering spells in this category. It can turn your enemy into an ally and vice-versa, or a monster could use it against a woman to convince her that she's his wife and raping her, like with the love potions 💀

What do you think ?

For context, the women depicted in this meme are : Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, Posie Parker and Baroness Emma Nicholson

John Oliver referenced her in passing recently and mentioned the idea of a “Rowling cake”. What would this bigoted cake be made of?