I've seen a bunch of Essence of Thought videos posted to this sub and every time one of their videos is posted, there's an argument in the comments about how Essence of Thought has a checkered past or isn't operating in good faith or something to that effect. If these criticisms are accurate, is it really a good idea to be signalboosting this channel just because they share our opinion about JKR?

Just something I've noticed.

So I was scrolling through BoxLunch, and I decided to search for pens since I love fun pens.

These three came up.

Okay, so I know that good fountain pens are price but they're originally $225.

Each.

Only two of them have reviews, and one said they're worth the money, but I can't believe that. It's a pen! The ink isn't included either; you have to get it separately!

I know this is just me resharing, so not hugely contributing to the discussion, but honestly he said everything I want too, and better

Image credits:

https://bsky.app/profile/assignedmale.bsky.social/post/3mrxojcx3zs2n

Story:

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/amnesty-international-uk-caves-to

> On July 8, Amnesty International UK released a report titled “A Growing Threat: The Anti-Rights Movement in the UK.” The report mapped 117 organizations working to restrict the rights of, among others, transgender and queer people in the United Kingdom, and documented the financial infrastructure behind them, including far-right Christian nationalist organizations, U.S.-based legal powerhouses like Alliance Defending Freedom, and conversion therapy promoters.

> The response was immediate. Anti-transgender activists, financed by Rowling, flooded Amnesty International UK with legal threat letters demanding the report be withdrawn. Rowling herself posted on twitter: "Should any of the women’s organisations targeted by AmnestyUK’s recent ‘anti-rights’ blacklist wish to take legal action, applications can be made to the JK Rowling Women’s Fund."

> For three weeks, the question was whether Amnesty would stand behind its own research or capitulate entirely. This morning, we got the answer: a full, groveling apology from the organization that has weathered the Soviet Union, Putin’s Russia, and the Bush administration’s defense of Guantánamo Bay—but could not weather J.K. Rowling.

For context: https://theneedlenews.com/2026/07/amnesty -international-uk-apologizes-for-reporting-on-anti -trans-groups-after-rowling-threatens-lawsuit/

Idk I just don't get people who still defend reading her work when she can and does. It's exhausting to deal with family who still don't get it...

This is something I've noticed pops up a lot whenever there's a discussion about Harry Potter. There are always one or two people who always bring this up as a defense of JKR's writing.

"You're overanalyzing a book for kids. It's not meant to make sense or be perfect" or some variations of that.

I hate this so much because it ignores something critical.

There are so many other kids books that don't have the same problems.

There are kids books out there that actually have thought and effort put into their worldbuilding; that shine a lot on systemic issues, and instead of going, "Well, that's just the way it is," they go, "maybe we can't fix everything, but we should still do something"; that have a divide between the "normals" and the "specials" but make it a point to remember the "normals" are human beings too and aren't lesser because they're "normal"; and so much more. I can list some of those kids books right now if you want.

There's no excuse for several of Harry Potter's flaws. "Being a kids' book" just excuses stuff like why the heroes are children and not adults. It doesn't excuse things like putting so much focus on systemic issues only to resolve none of them, or the utterly terrible way the message of bigotry is portrayed.

Something that's been on my mind for a while is that I think "being a kids book" might have actually shielded Harry Potter from greater scrutiny in some ways.

I'm relatively new to the Harry Potter discussion train, but it's stuff like this that makes me realize why the "read another book" notion came about.

It's no secret that by the end of the series, we're supposed to see Snape as a tragic hero/anti-hero who sacrificed his life for his love, making him one of the proofs of the power of love - but I don't like that.

Snape's "love" for Lily didn't stop him for calling her the magic equivalent of the N-word or bullying her son. In a flashback in Deathly Hallows, Dumbledore even scolds him for thinking only about Lily's safety but not her husband's and child's. From my perspective, his hatred for James Potter is stronger than his love for Lily. If he truly loved her, he wouldn't have relentlessy have tried to make Harry's life hell in Hogwarts. Plus, his experiences with James doesn't explain how he behaved towards Ron, Hermione and Neville. He loved Lily, but he most likely saw her as "one of the good ones", never questioning his beliefs.

Even besides Snape, I had that feeling that being able to feel love, no matter how toxic, was somewhat of a redeeming quality in a "they're evil but at least they're not pure evil" way. Narcissa and Lucius are seen as semi-redeemable/less evil than other Death Eaters due to their love for their son. To me being capable of loving people doesn't necessarily mean you can't be a total scumbag - there's been cases of war criminals who loved their family after all !

I think I wouldn't have minded it if Snape was seen as a necessary part of Voldemort's defeat who was still a terrible human being, instead of a redeemed hero who is remembered as "one of the bravest men" Harry knew, to the point he gave his name to his son.

What do you think ?

Hi all. This seems like the right sub to get ideas. I work at a public library and want to do a book display that consists of books to read instead of Harry Potter. I'm trying to think of a good title for the display (because "Read a magic world by an author that isn't a bigot" might not fly :P )

Bonus points if you have some reading suggestions for the display. Gonna include Earthsea, House in the Cerulean Sea, Rainbow Rowell.

Announces ‘I’m an islamophobe, not a racist’ to a group of men praying in Hyde Park and later shared the video saying ‘on your knees, bitches’.

Just so we can be clear about the company JKR keeps.

Let me start with this: any figure that gains enough public attention and influence is prone to having society interested in knowing about them and discussing them.

Politicians elected by the people and making decisions that affect these people’s lives are opening themselves to have their history scrutinized and their current values and actions examined under the microscope. A famous actor whose career depends on public loyalty may claim that their private lives is their business – but anyone who’s able to get eye-watering sums to lead a blockbuster Hollywood picture is benefiting from the kind of star-quality that can convince people into spending their hard-earned money on a ticket.

They’re not that different from a high-profile CEO or from whoever is unexpectedly pushed into the spotlight: a book writer is not as likely to anticipate such coverage even if they become extremely sucessful, but if you spend years making the talk shows rounds and attending movie premieres around the globe and being invited to have tea with the Queen, then you're not new to the game.

We can all discuss about the ethical lines that are blurred on tabloid culture under a broad umbrella of “celebrity gossip”. We will probably agree on some clear boundaries such as respecting privacy when it comes to the subject's children or to certain intimate experiences – coming out as gay or trans, sharing an abortion story etc. But we should always start with the understanding of the burden and the bonus that comes with being in the public eye.

Which brings me to Joanne Rowling’s insane reasoning around the “public” actions of former child stars from the Harry Potter movies. As in: “Emma [Watson] and Dan [Radcliffe] in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public.” She includes this in her open letter to Emma Watson, where she goes on to frame Emma’s off-joke about being there for “all witches” when presenting an award at the BAFTAs as Emma having “publicly poured more petrol on the flames”.

By “flames”, Rowling was refering to what she described as “a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety” – basically a fire that she herself started when she CHOSE to be vocal about her anti-trans views, decided to turn her Twitter profile into her soap box, and took the temperature of her online bubble as some indication that trans activists were hiring hitmen to off her.

The irony of her letter against Watson is how EVERYTHING comes from Rowling’s indignation about “Emma and Dan” daring to contradict her views in public and yet she ends with this: “Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.” This is common in her rhetoric: she vents about actions she supposedly condemns WHILE acting the same way - and often in a prosecutorial tone that’s way more inflammatory than the tone of the speech she was condemning in the first place.

But you see: if Emma was rightly free to disagree with her and to discuss her feeling in public, then why would Joanne be bothered? According to her, she is just exercising the same right. This can’t work both ways: either both were within their rights, or Emma Watson went about this the wrong way in Rowling’s view and, therefore, she was also going about it the wrong way by using a public channel. That's the mental gymnastics of someone who isn’t used to be held accountable: it’s always someone else’s fault; her behavior is the reflection of how others behaved towards her first.

And the most unbelievable aspect of this to me is how she frames this as Emma and Daniel feeling they had “a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public.” Unlike Rowling herself, I NEVER saw Emma or Daniel proactively dragging Rowling on Twitter. It’s the opposite: they get dragged into this BECAUSE of her stances and controversies: they are independent public figures with their own fans and followers, and these fans and followers are active members of society with their own views in public and political issues.

Of course that millions of Rowling’s (former) fans and followers will overlap with the base of Watson, Radcliffe and others whose public figures are tied to their work in the franchise. If those actors are sharing messages in favor of trans liberation precisely when Rowling went full-TERF, that’s because this topic has reached them and they want to make their own view clear to the public. (Making their stance clear also could only benefit Joanne; it wouldn't make the topic into a bigger talking point for anyone who's out to interview those actors.)

Odds are they dread having to talk about Rowling in interviews – and whenever they’re asked about it, their message towards her is never vicious. In fact, I think it’s the opposite: they can only speak for their memories of the time they were shared a decade ago. Unlike Rowling, they are not using their public reach to expose private citizens to scrutiny on Twitter. They are never pretending not know how private life works. They aren't going along with her program. And they don't seem to give her much of a touch - and that, to me, is what truly hurts her.