Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,419
5,676
118
Australia
Dude, I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. That, what? People intentionally misinterpret media to suit their own ends/views? Because if that's the case, you understand that's what the "house elves are slaves" argument is doing, right?



Under normal circumstances? Slavery.

What would you call a situation where a species doesn't consider the situation slavery, where they find fulfillment in their circumstances, and where they resist any attempts to change their circumstances?



Yes, you're right - if Hedwig demanded freedom, Harry should free her. If Dobby wanted freedom, the Malfoys should have freed him.

However, by your own statement, house elves can think for themselves, are sapient, and are, conspicuously, not doing anything like what you've not described. If people aren't asking for X, and reject my offers of X, why should I force X on them?
Force? No, but given the Wizarding World’s propensity towards and proliferation of mind control magic, I would be deeply suspicious of that attitude from another sapient being so closely intertwined with them. I mean we normal humans are more than capable of brainwashing and conditioning each other, never mind what we can do when we don’t consider the subject a person.

Hermione’s main mistake was starting with the Hogwarts house elves, who are arguably going to be the only ones actually getting the deal as idealised.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
(Probably the last post for today).

It's doesn't change the fact that later HP books are using allegory from the real world US slave trade, and more or less saying it's pointless to change the system. That the elves are happy in slavery.
First, I thought you said you'd only read the first two books.

Second, where are they using that allegory at all (let's assume for the sake of argument that the house elf thing is a slavery allagory in the first place)? Because the only person who comments that house elves are slaves is Hermione, and I don't recall her ever using US slavery as an example. Heck, I checked the wiki, the US is barely even mentioned in the original seven books, period.

That creates too many unfortunate implications and validates white nationalists, the KKK, and Neo-Nazis already racists and bias views.
Yes, because they're totally basing their views on humans based on non-humans in a book series intended for 12-18 year olds.

Seriously, how many people have you seen holding up a copy of Harry Potter yelling "slavery is good, because Winky told me so?!"

Just because they're fantasy races, doesn't make it better or okay! Especially when using real world allegory and spitting in the millions and 100s years of suffering of people being treated as less than human, because the color of their god damn skin!
First, the real-world allegory for house elves is well established. Any extensions to slavery are going well beyond the actual allegory.

Second, fantasy races can operate on their own terms. A fantasy race can be enslaved, and that can be presented as a bad thing (usually is), but if a fantasy race is in a situation where it's content with its condition, doesn't consider it slavery, and rejects any attempts to have that condition changed, then yes, it's probably best to respect their wishes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,304
12,216
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
First, I thought you said you'd only read the first two books.
You do realize I've been reading comments from TheMysteriousGX, Gordon4, and others. They usually know what they're talking about. I looked up the rest.

Yeah, I don't care about the rest of your rambling, skepticism, and over defensive attitude of these books. I have been looking at the thread. Ignoring you for right now, so don't even bother responding back. Got shit to do tonight.
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,557
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
Would the pro-hermione here rip islamic headscarves from the head of muslim girls and women ?

It's a thing, in France. A heated debate, between feminists and feminists, between left-winged people and left-winged people (I saw political forums torn by that). And the discussions here seem to echo some aspects of the discussions there. The "is there such a thing as willing slavery", "should people be liberated against their will", etc. With, often, the premise that headscarf-wearing muslim women are conditionned to endure the headscarf's obligation, and would only display freedom of thought if they refused to wear it.

Also, what does happen, in the potter book, to a house elf who refuses to serve. Is he punished, are there outside constraints ?

These are not easy questions, because "willingness" is not always clear cut (except in fantasy, where a non-human creature can be defined by clear-cut willingness - or evem a human, like tristan and iseult's love story which is glorified even though it stems from a magic potion). For instance, undocumented workers, victims of human trafficking, who willingly accepted a seasonal job but are forced to accept abject conditions due to their illegal status. Or hey, the freedom to choose, with a dagger on the throat, between your money or your life. Human "will" is so complex, and so suspicious, the word covers so many different degrees of acceptation, that a same overly simple fantasy metaphor can be pointed at any of these configurations. At will.

Again, what really annoys me in that thread is that this novel could be just as well constructed as a happy disney southern slave metaphor or as a metaphor for (what I consider illitimate) forced "liberation" of women who respect -often on their own- a patriarchal, religious/cultural hair taboo. The fact that this house elves metaphor could apply -even if horribly offensively clumsily- to so many different things should prevent such violently opinonated stances and antagonisms. The discussion could have converged to some appeased "yeah there's this aspect and yes there could be that one" instead of imposed univocal interpretations.

Hence my curiosity. The fact that it doesn't - is that because of different underlying approaches to the issue of headscarf constraints ? Are there parallels between stances about it and stances about this book ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Would the pro-hermione here rip islamic headscarves from the head of muslim girls and women ?

It's a thing, in France. A heated debate, between feminists and feminists, between left-winged people and left-winged people (I saw political forums torn by that). And the discussions here seem to echo some aspects of the discussions there. The "is there such a thing as willing slavery", "should people be liberated against their will", etc. With, often, the premise that headscarf-wearing muslim women are conditionned to endure the headscarf's obligation, and would only display freedom of thought if they refused to wear it.

Also, what does happen, in the potter book, to a house elf who refuses to serve. Is he punished, are there outside constraints ?

These are not easy questions, because "willingness" is not always clear cut (except in fantasy, where a non-human creature can be defined by clear-cut willingness - or evem a human, like tristan and iseult's love story which is glorified even though it stems from a magic potion). For instance, undocumented workers, victims of human trafficking, who willingly accepted a seasonal job but are forced to accept abject conditions due to their illegal status. Or hey, the freedom to choose, with a dagger on the throat, between your money or your life. Human "will" is so complex, and so suspicious, the word covers so many different degrees of acceptation, that a same overly simple fantasy metaphor can be pointed at any of these configurations. At will.

Again, what really annoys me in that thread is that this novel could be just as well constructed as a happy disney southern slave metaphor or as a metaphor for (what I consider illitimate) forced "liberation" of women who respect -often on their own- a patriarchal, religious/cultural hair taboo. The fact that this house elves metaphor could apply -even if horribly offensively clumsily- to so many different things should prevent such violently opinonated stances and antagonisms. The discussion could have converged to some appeased "yeah there's this aspect and yes there could be that one" instead of imposed univocal interpretations.

Hence my curiosity. The fact that it doesn't - is that because of different underlying approaches to the issue of headscarf constraints ? Are there parallels between stances about it and stances about this book ?
Personally I see no problem with the hijab if this is what the wearer wants for themselves. I understand it can be difficult to decide where that line is drawn, so I try to take it on a case-by-case basis. Would I forcibly remove the hijab from a woman forced to wear it? No. That would only make things worse for her. She'd be the one likely to be socially punished, rather than me. I mean, I'm a cishet white dude. It's mind-blowing the kind of shit I can get away with. Still, I try be a little more about shoulda, not coulda.

Really, I just find many of the arguments defending the portrayal of house elves as a little sus, because they mostly rely on the conceit, "But they're happy!" Which is a line that has been used in the past to justify exploitation of other people. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth and I today I find the writing to be ham-fisted and poorly conceived and executed. Why people insist on defending this as good writing or whatever rubs me the wrong way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Absent and BrawlMan

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,419
5,676
118
Australia
Would the pro-hermione here rip islamic headscarves from the head of muslim girls and women ?

It's a thing, in France. A heated debate, between feminists and feminists, between left-winged people and left-winged people (I saw political forums torn by that). And the discussions here seem to echo some aspects of the discussions there. The "is there such a thing as willing slavery", "should people be liberated against their will", etc. With, often, the premise that headscarf-wearing muslim women are conditionned to endure the headscarf's obligation, and would only display freedom of thought if they refused to wear it.

Also, what does happen, in the potter book, to a house elf who refuses to serve. Is he punished, are there outside constraints ?

These are not easy questions, because "willingness" is not always clear cut (except in fantasy, where a non-human creature can be defined by clear-cut willingness - or evem a human, like tristan and iseult's love story which is glorified even though it stems from a magic potion). For instance, undocumented workers, victims of human trafficking, who willingly accepted a seasonal job but are forced to accept abject conditions due to their illegal status. Or hey, the freedom to choose, with a dagger on the throat, between your money or your life. Human "will" is so complex, and so suspicious, the word covers so many different degrees of acceptation, that a same overly simple fantasy metaphor can be pointed at any of these configurations. At will.

Again, what really annoys me in that thread is that this novel could be just as well constructed as a happy disney southern slave metaphor or as a metaphor for (what I consider illitimate) forced "liberation" of women who respect -often on their own- a patriarchal, religious/cultural hair taboo. The fact that this house elves metaphor could apply -even if horribly offensively clumsily- to so many different things should prevent such violently opinonated stances and antagonisms. The discussion could have converged to some appeased "yeah there's this aspect and yes there could be that one" instead of imposed univocal interpretations.

Hence my curiosity. The fact that it doesn't - is that because of different underlying approaches to the issue of headscarf constraints ? Are there parallels between stances about it and stances about this book ?
Would I deliberately assault - which is what ripping it off someone is tantamount to - someone for wearing a headscarf? No, because that’s a crime and I’m not an asshole. Hell in my country I think they’re a sensible thing for anyone, be they Muslim or no, to wear in summer: keep the sun off your neck and ears without the encumbrance of a wide brim hat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,918
1,788
118
Country
United Kingdom
Would the pro-hermione here rip islamic headscarves from the head of muslim girls and women ?
During British rule in India, there was a particular moral panic around sati, or widow immolation. That is when a widow whose husband has recently died kills herself, often by throwing herself onto the funeral pyre. British authorities made a very concerted attempt to stamp this practice out, but were met with a great deal of resistance from Hindu religious authorities and Indian nationalists. They argued that sati was an integral part of the history and culture of the Indian subcontinent. They objected to the idea that the women who killed themselves in this way were victims, they were the exemplars of everything a virtuous woman aspired to be. Who wouldn't want that?

Gayatri Spivak wrote about this controversy much later and glibly described it (and colonialism in general) as "white men saving brown women from brown men". But she also made an interesting yet incredibly obvious point. We know what the view of British colonial authorities was. We know what the view of Hindu religious authorities were. But we don't know anything about how the women who were immolated felt about it. Both sides are claiming to speak for those women, but they don't get to speak for themselves. They're just the territory on which this cultural clash takes place.

Cultures are not monolithic. When people claim something is part of their culture, they're claiming a kind of authority to speak for that culture, including the people who don't get to speak in that way. Some people have more power to decide what is integral to their culture than others.

I don't agree with ripping headscarfs off people, but I think people arguing against the headscarf-rippers often make a mistake in assuming that the headscarf is just a neutral part of something called "Islam" or "Islamic culture" which can never be challenged, and that's not true. Respecting other cultures means recognizing that those cultures consist of individuals who may have different beliefs and values and, importantly, may have varying levels of agency, autonomy and influence within that culture. It's not that headscarves are intrinsically deserving of respect, but that people who wear headscarves deserve better than to be pawns in someone else's clash of civilizations.

And here's where the comparison to house elves really, really starts to disintegrate, because house elves aren't a culture or a religion. Their desire to work for others for no pay is not a cultural characteristic, it's a racial characteristic. If it were cultural, that culture would be mutable and would have to have ways of propagating itself. It would need to make sense in its own terms. Hagrid dismissing Dobby as a "weirdo" because he likes being free and other house elves don't wouldn't be the neutral statement it's treated as.

Again, what really annoys me in that thread is that this novel could be just as well constructed as a happy disney southern slave metaphor or as a metaphor for (what I consider illitimate) forced "liberation" of women who respect -often on their own- a patriarchal, religious/cultural hair taboo.
Sure, it can be read in those terms, but I don't think either of them work very well because I don't think anything suggests that house elves are a metaphor, and I don't think that's what most people are alleging.

Honestly, if I were to read any real political meaning into House Elves, it wouldn't be about slavery at all. It would be about class. I don't think Joanne, the woman who named her one black character "Kingsley Shacklebolt", is culturally aware enough of the history of slavery to make any kind of comment on it. I think if house elves are suggestive of anything, it's the kind of "upstairs/downstairs" dynamic commonly featured in British media (Downton Abbey, for example). It's the general nostalgia a lot of British people seem to have for an era where everyone "knew their place" and was happy in their allotted station in life because sure, the servants aren't living lives of luxury but isn't it nice they're part of the household.

But I think more generally the problem with house elves is that they can be read (alongside everything else in the books) as an indication of how JK Rowling views social problems and activism. Hermione is never actually shown to be wrong. We're continuously confronted with examples of house elves being abused in ways that are only possible because of their social position. Our first contact with house elves is Dobby, who is abused by his master, but ultimately is freed and it's treated as unquestionably good.

The problem with Hermionie isn't that she's behaving unreasonably or doing anything wrong, it's that Harry (and everyone else) finds her annoying.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,475
7,048
118
Country
United States
Mother of fuck
"Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards, Harry. Yes, he is to be pitied. His existence has been as miserable as your friend Dobby's. He was forced to do Sirius's bidding, because Sirius was the last of the family to which he was enslaved, but he felt no true loyalty to him. And whatever Kreacher's faults, it must be admitted that Sirius did nothing to make Kreacher's lot easier."— Dumbledore on Kreacher the house-elf's thought process
Albus Dumbledore: "Give him an order. If he has passed into your ownership, he will have to obey. If not, then we shall have to think of some other means of keeping him from his rightful mistress.
"Kreacher: "Won't, won't, won't, WON'T!"
Harry Potter: "Kreacher, SHUT UP!"
According to the WOMBAT test, it is possible that house-elves have an average life expectancy of 200 years, cannot be ordered to kill themselves, breed infrequently and only with their master's permission, can override wizard enchantments, and have an allegiance to their home rather than its inhabitants. The answer key of the test awards five points for counting "cannot be ordered to kill themselves" as false, and one point for counting "A house-elf's allegiance is foremost to its house (rather than to the inhabitants of the house)", likely implying that this is only partially true. Perhaps house-elves are loyal to the inhabitants of a house only so long as they inhabit the house. The other statements are presumably true, and a house-elf can likely be ordered to kill itself, although most owners would have little reason to use this order.

Yeah man, they're slaves. These books are neither complex nor nuanced
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I didn't say it did, but white nationalist will see it and take a big run with once they have found out. Be HP or RS.
Who?

Name one white nationalist who's ever used HP as a foundational text for their views.

That's precisely the situation with AI in countless science fiction, notably Asimov. The AIs are not analogous to a real world group. But it would be utterly naive to read the breadth of work and believe it draws nothing from the real-world phenomenon of slavery. It evokes and invites these comparisons. It is unavoidable as long as a sapient creature is compelled to serve another for nothing.
Again, that's debatable. Fears around AI have been around since at least the first half of the 20th century, and these are fears that have endured into the 21st century‌, because there's genuine reasons to be wary when it comes to AI. It's entirely possible to write a story about AIs turning on their creators and not having any slavery analogy (e.g. Terminator).

So I ask again: what would you call a system that keeps an entire species in bondage with no cop on the beat to prevent abuse?
Well first, your premise is wrong in part, because there are "cops on the beat," even if they'd faded away by the time of the series when it came to house elf welfare, and why Hermione strengthens the regulations post-Hallows.

Second, as I've already said, under normal circumstances, that would be called slavery, but these aren't normal circumstances. You're applying human concepts and values to a species that isn't human and doesn't hold the same values.

And the slaves in Gone with the Wind were portrayed as happy as well. Just because an author writes something does not make it good.
There's a world of difference between HP and GwtW.

1: GwtW is historical fiction, HP is fantasy.

2: The slaves in GwtW are humans, enslaved by humans, and we know how slaves feel about enslavement. House elves, in contrast, aren't human, and when offered the chance of freedom, reject it wholesale.

3: I'm reluctant to comment on GwTW too much because I've never read/seen it, but as far as I'm aware, the book/film (especially the latter) has always had some degree of controversy associated with it in regards to the depiction of the South. Harry Potter, in contrast, has none of this baggage. Even disregarding the house elves entirely, HP doesn't really tell us much about anything in time period it was written in, nor the time period it's set in, since the bulk of its events are in a fantastical world.

And that somehow makes exploitation okay? As long as the being you're exploiting isn't a human?
Well your question rests on the premise that the creatures in question see themselves as being exploited and/or want to change their status.

If there's a group of people who you insist need to change, and they insist that they don't need to change, who's the one at fault here?

Force? No, but given the Wizarding World’s propensity towards and proliferation of mind control magic, I would be deeply suspicious of that attitude from another sapient being so closely intertwined with them. I mean we normal humans are more than capable of brainwashing and conditioning each other, never mind what we can do when we don’t consider the subject a person.
All of that's hypothetically possible, but there's no actual evidence for it.

Hermione’s main mistake was starting with the Hogwarts house elves, who are arguably going to be the only ones actually getting the deal as idealised.
Well, that's part of the mistake, but the bigger one is that Hermione never cares (initially) what the Hogwarts house elves actually want. Contrast that to her later career where she works for house elf welfare, and gets much more effective results at that.

You do realize I've been reading comments from TheMysteriousGX, Gordon4, and others. They usually know what they're talking about. I looked up the rest.
So, basically, Alien: Covenant all over again.

Yeah, I don't care about the rest of your rambling, skepticism, and over defensive attitude of these books. I have been looking at the thread. Ignoring you for right now, so don't even bother responding back. Got shit to do tonight.
Fine, you can go on my ignore list if you want.

Would the pro-hermione here rip islamic headscarves from the head of muslim girls and women ?
Probably.

Also, what does happen, in the potter book, to a house elf who refuses to serve. Is he punished, are there outside constraints ?
If a house elf is discontent, they've got limited options. If they refuse to obey a master's order, they self-harm themselves. They do, however, have leeway in interpreting orders (see Kreacher for example).

Human "will" is so complex, and so suspicious, the word covers so many different degrees of acceptation, that a same overly simple fantasy metaphor can be pointed at any of these configurations. At will.
Yes, but this is assuming that the hosue elves are meant to be a metaphor at all.

Hence my curiosity. The fact that it doesn't - is that because of different underlying approaches to the issue of headscarf constraints ? Are there parallels between stances about it and stances about this book ?
Far as I'm concerned, people can wear the headscarf if they want, it's not my business to tell people what they can and can't wear, as long as no coersion is involved.

If we're applying that analogy, Hermione is the type of person who insists that everyone who's wearing a headscarf is oppressed, before maturing and looking at the matter intelligently, distinguishing between those who wear it by choice, and those who are forced to.

Really, I just find many of the arguments defending the portrayal of house elves as a little sus, because they mostly rely on the conceit, "But they're happy!" Which is a line that has been used in the past to justify exploitation of other people. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth and I today I find the writing to be ham-fisted and poorly conceived and executed. Why people insist on defending this as good writing or whatever rubs me the wrong way.
"Do not resist, we are liberating you."

If we're talking about lines, I assume you're familiar with that one.

I'll flip this on its head - there's a precedent for the opposite, because there's been countless attempts at trying to improve a people's lot that have ignored the wishes of those involved, and in the end, it doesn't work, or even makes things worse.

And to be frank, I don't think the SPEW plotline is particuarly well written, but that's beside the point.

Mother of fuck


Yeah man, they're slaves. These books are neither complex nor nuanced
You said earlier that you didn't consider anything outside the books to be canon, yet here you are citing stuff outside the books.

As to your actual points, all of this is factual (the speculation for the WOMBAT aside), but again, nothing you've cited shows that house elves are operating outside their nature. That house elves have the potential to be abused is well established, we see that from Kreacher, to Winky, to Dobby, which comes to a head in book 5 - Kreacher was abused, Sirius died, abusing goodwill for too long will have reprecussions (and is a generally shitty thing to do regardless).
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,637
2,856
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
This was post #454, roughly half this thread ago. Hrm.

Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
I should hope we can all agree this is a good ideal to have, at least.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,637
2,856
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
At least you're not hiding the fact that you don't give a shit about others. Moving right along.
I do not need to be an "ally" to have basic human empathy you nitwit. Being an "ally" means believing men are in female bodies or vice versa, I don't believe that, that doesn't mean I don't care about people. If you think caring about others is doing and believing whatever they say then I'm sorry, but it's you who doesn't care about others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,304
12,216
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Who?

Name one white nationalist who's ever used HP as a foundational text for their views.
I didn't say there were any big names, but more than likely one of them will have at some point. Not everything's going to be caught in the news. It's the same thing I said about certain My Little Pony "fans" using that Zecora episode to justify their racism. You bet for damn sure that they would do the same for Harry Potter. Assuming they have already. My point being with that pricks like that they'll use anything to justify their pettiness and cruelty. Be it fantasy or their warped version of reality. These are the same jackasses that uses Norse mythology to justify their racism and constantly think it's an excuse for them on their whole, "survival of the fittest" mentality.

basically, Alien: Covenant all over again
Nope. And the movie still a piece of garbage. There's only two Alien movies, the Alien versus Predator games (with the Capcom arcade game being the best for me), Predator 1, Predator 2, Predators, and Prey. With the first AVP movie being a nice alternative universe. You're never going to get me to waste two and a half hours of my life watching another crappy Alien sequel. Get over it. There are people that consider this movie crap, and for a good reason. You watch whatever crappy movies you want on your own time; not mine. Got it?

Fine, you can go on my ignore list if you want
Not going to lose any sleep, if you choose to. The same applies for me, if I decide to do it.

 
Last edited:

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,304
12,216
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
ask again: what would you call a system that keeps an entire species in bondage with no cop on the beat to prevent abuse?
Slavery. Yet he will never admit it, because he cares too much for this franchise.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
1: GwtW is historical fiction, HP is fantasy.
Fantasy does not excuse bad writing. And that's what the whole house elf thing is. It's bad writing. That's the last I'm going to say on this because no other point seems to get through.

I do not need to be an "ally" to have basic human empathy you nitwit. Being an "ally" means believing men are in female bodies or vice versa, I don't believe that, that doesn't mean I don't care about people. If you think caring about others is doing and believing whatever they say then I'm sorry, but it's you who doesn't care about others.
Spare me the fake outrage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,036
6,341
118
Country
United Kingdom
Again, that's debatable. Fears around AI have been around since at least the first half of the 20th century, and these are fears that have endured into the 21st century‌, because there's genuine reasons to be wary when it comes to AI. It's entirely possible to write a story about AIs turning on their creators and not having any slavery analogy (e.g. Terminator).
Of course its possible. But that's not the reality. Anyone well versed in science fiction literature knows it often, and intentionally, evoked themes and moral questions related to slavery, without the AIs ever being a stand-in for a real-world demographic.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,036
6,341
118
Country
United Kingdom
Who?

Name one white nationalist who's ever used HP as a foundational text for their views.
Not a "foundational text" or whatever, but that's not really required to support the original point.

A Republican senator did cite J.K. Rowling's letter as a justification for voting against the Equality Act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan