Dumbledore = cheeky monkey

Hrothgar

Hrothgar

Straight from the world-is-completely-insane department:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter

Looks like Rowling really is the leftist, commie nutjob that she was always suspected of being. The best part: when she urges her fans to "question authority". Remember when adults were supposed to teach children to be good people, as opposed to brainwashing them into joining their political affiliation?

Time to get rid of all my potter books, i suppose. How are you going to handle this?
 
seems to me that youre the one whos been brainwashed if youre the kind of person who is willing to get rid of literature he enjoys simply because of the politics of the author, even moreso if you think the concept of 'question[ing] authority' is a bad thing

grow up, lol
 
Apart from giving religious nutjobs another excuse to complain about her books, I suspect some fan fiction authors could have a field day with this... I don't understand why this wasn't just mentioned in the book if it's supposed to be canon though.
 
Characters should be fleshed out fully before you start writing.. If it doesnt come up it doesnt come up..

And honestly why would it. I know gay people that I have known as well as Harry knew Dumbledore without ever discussing their sexuality.. Much like how I know Heterosexual people that well without ever discussing their sexuality either. I mean, tbh Dumbledore would probably be fired for talking to one of his students too openly about it..

Have a nice day.
 
Glen said:
seems to me that youre the one whos been brainwashed if youre the kind of person who is willing to get rid of literature he enjoys simply because of the politics of the author,
grow up, lol
Click to expand...

So growing up means having no moral sense? Growing up means not fighting for what you think is right? Just accepting everything you think is wrong?

Excuse me if I feel the need to separate my kids from sick influences. Guess I need to grow up.

And the phrase 'question authority' takes on an entirely new meaning when issued forth from the mouth of a leftist who also just happens to be a communist. In this case, it means 'authority can do no right', echoing the sentiments of liberal extremists everywhere. But hey, grown ups are supposed to just expose their children to this nonsense, right? I really should go ahead and grow up already.

And in all honesty, I would be just as pissed if Rowling was a conservative extremist and Dumbledore turned out to be a militant pro-lifer or something. I think homosexuality is wrong, but the political extremism is more dangerous in my mind.

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Dumbledore's outing and how it will affect your take on the potter series. Jump off the slander bandwagon and forget about Hrothgar.
 
SSBM roy said:
I don't understand why this wasn't just mentioned in the book if it's supposed to be canon though.
Click to expand...
I think it's all marketing; having a gay character in a book would prohibit it from being as widespread as it is. It's just like how some famous musicians keep quiet about their political affiliations; if they come out and say "i'm this" then half of their target demographic would refuse to buy their album. Look at where the dixie chicks are today, for example. Ted Nugent is another good example.

If Rowling was like "dumbledore's gay" early on, everyone who won't accept homosexuality wouldn't be buying harry potter books. It's OK for her to say it now that all the selling is done, i suppose.

edit: shit, sorry about the double post
 
Hrothgar said:
And the phrase 'question authority' takes on an entirely new meaning when issued forth from the mouth of a leftist who also just happens to be a communist. In this case, it means 'authority can do no right', echoing the sentiments of liberal extremists everywhere. But hey, grown ups are supposed to just expose their children to this nonsense, right? I really should go ahead and grow up already.
Click to expand...

Exactly what evidence is there that J. K. Rowling is a communist? She's donated to charities, but still has a great deal of money so she's not exactly committed to radical income redistribution, at least in practicality. Besides, typical right wingers attack communism based on its implementation in the Soviet Union in a very authoritarian system, so I'm not sure how you connected those ideas. Rejecting the ability of government to do anything good sounds more like the position of a libertarian or anarchist, although there's nothing particularly extreme about asking someone to question authority that's based on an appointed position and not knowledge or ability.

But that's all irrelevant considering this doesn't have anything to do with economic policy but rather a ridiculous opinion that homosexuality is somehow immoral...
 
SSBM roy said:
Exactly what evidence is there that J. K. Rowling is a communist?
Click to expand...
This is the kind of discussion I was looking for. Wasn't expecting flame wars, but hey...it's the internet.

She is a supporter and 'admirer' of dangerous communist mouthpiece Decca Mitford. She even named her daughter after her. After that, evidence can be found in the books themselves. The corrupt ministry is a giveaway. So is are the residents of Privet Drive, a perfect exhibit of failed democracy and capitalism. Hell, she even named the Phoenix 'fawkes'. If i'm not mistaken, he's the guy that tried to blow up parliament and kill the king. Excellent role model for children.

Maybe 'communist' isn't entirely accurate. Perhaps she's more like a down-with-authority type that believes change can only be brought about through radical means, which is a staple of communist activities.

a ridiculous opinion that homosexuality is somehow immoral...
Click to expand...
Not the kind of discussion i was trying to create. What does this have to do with harry potter? Thanks for calling me ridiculous, though. I'm totally going to change my ways now.
 
To be honest, I was a little surprised when I read that article...

... but it hasn't changed my opinion of Dumbledore (he's still one of my favorite characters), the series, or Rowling. I suppose I would be a "libertarian" if I cared enough for politics, but in general, I believe in letting people do what they want and then letting them deal with the consequences of their own actions- or to put it simply, I'm pretty chill about everything.

Ultimately, just because the author mentions something surprising (whether good or bad in my view) about one of the characters doesn't mean it will change the enjoyment I got out of the series while I was reading it in the past.

At any rate, I agree with Hipmonlee about how the reason Dumbledore's sexuality never came up in the series was primarily because it didn't need to be brought up. In between discussions about wanting socks for Christmas and Horcruxes, I think it was be just a little awkward if Dumbledore just brought it up to Harry. (Similarly, I feel like Hermione and SPEW was in the same vein but was put into the books anyway... I mean, she doesn't even mention SPEW again after book four, I don't think.)
 
Radical means such as writing childrens literature?

I dunno if you realise that Guy Fawkes day is a holiday in england celebrated with fireworks. Kids dont need HP books to know about him..

And as for questioning authority, well aside from the fact I have no idea what you are talking about (due to the fact that I dont really know shit about HP, not due to a belief you are lying or whatever), questioning authority is not exactly the same as overthrowing parliament in a bloody coup. Nor is it the same as being a communist nor even disagreeing with Authority.

It looks to me like you are a rightwing nutjob that is blowing a trivial fact about a childrens novel out of proportion.

I was looking for a dinosaur comic that illustrates my point nicely, wherein T-Rex attempts to make a documentary without any political message.. I couldnt find it. Anyway the point is a persons beliefs will always have an impact on anything they do, and given that you actually had to be told that Dumbledore was gay in order to have this objection to this series is evidence enough that the politics of Harry Potter are not blatant enough to be worth discussing.

Have a nice day.
 
What the fuck is the the OP bitching about? When I grew up, I was always taught to question authority and not take anything I heard for truth without verifying it independently first. This is supposed to be a bad thing?

Also Dumbledore being gay for Grindelwald actually makes a lot of sense etc etc.
 
Hrothgar said:
So growing up means having no moral sense? Growing up means not fighting for what you think is right? Just accepting everything you think is wrong?

holy fuck, how obvlivious can you get? youre advocating 'fighting for what you think is right', and telling me about how one shouldnt just accept everything they think is wrong, yet...

you think questioning authority is a bad thing? lol

Excuse me if I feel the need to separate my kids from sick influences. Guess I need to grow up.

you have kids? good god, you should protect them from your own influence

And the phrase 'question authority' takes on an entirely new meaning when issued forth from the mouth of a leftist who also just happens to be a communist. In this case, it means 'authority can do no right', echoing the sentiments of liberal extremists everywhere. But hey, grown ups are supposed to just expose their children to this nonsense, right? I really should go ahead and grow up already.

it doesnt mean 'authority can do no right', youre extrapolating based on your weird paranoia. furthermore, maybe instead of being an extremist yourself who opts to ban everything they disagree with, why not allow your children to form their own conclusions? i think the nonsense you should be protecting your children from is the nonsense going on in your head.

And in all honesty, I would be just as pissed if Rowling was a conservative extremist and Dumbledore turned out to be a militant pro-lifer or something. I think homosexuality is wrong, but the political extremism is more dangerous in my mind.

stop with this 'extremism' bullshit. there is nothing extremist about it, youre just jumping to the conclusions you feel you should based on religious or political affiliation because you have no actual opinions of your own. youre a puppet.

a character in a childrens novel is gay. the author wants you to question authority, which there is NOTHING WRONG WITH. questioning authority in no way means rebellion, nor is it 'extremist'.

it seems to me like the only thing youve ever questioned is the content of a book for children. i know its hard for a puppet to grow up, but seriously, grow up.

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Dumbledore's outing and how it will affect your take on the potter series. Jump off the slander bandwagon and forget about Hrothgar.

sorry champ, its hard for me to focus on anything else when you make your idiocy so obvious. and frankly, if you actually have children, then im even more concerned.
Click to expand...
 
Thomas Jefferson said:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, questioning authority is a bad thing to be influencing our children with.
 
Hrothgar said:
So growing up means having no moral sense? Growing up means not fighting for what you think is right? Just accepting everything you think is wrong?

Excuse me if I feel the need to separate my kids from sick influences. Guess I need to grow up.

And the phrase 'question authority' takes on an entirely new meaning when issued forth from the mouth of a leftist who also just happens to be a communist. In this case, it means 'authority can do no right', echoing the sentiments of liberal extremists everywhere. But hey, grown ups are supposed to just expose their children to this nonsense, right? I really should go ahead and grow up already.

And in all honesty, I would be just as pissed if Rowling was a conservative extremist and Dumbledore turned out to be a militant pro-lifer or something. I think homosexuality is wrong, but the political extremism is more dangerous in my mind.

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Dumbledore's outing and how it will affect your take on the potter series. Jump off the slander bandwagon and forget about Hrothgar.
Click to expand...

Protecting your kids from Harry Potter? Before this, you had no idea there were political overtones in the book. Hardly sounds like a case of political extremism to me.

Seriously, J.K. Rowling could believe that setting puppies on fire is morally right, but wouldn't stop her from being a great writer. I think its sad that you are attacking a person (who happens to be famous) because they happen to have a political ideology different than yours.

As for the Harry Potter series, nothing for me will change. Dumbledore was still my favorite character, and still will be.
 
Hrothgar said:
Time to get rid of all my potter books, i suppose. How are you going to handle this?
Click to expand...

I'm going to start by infracting you for trolling I guess


I would try and rip the post apart but I'm a little too biased the other way and Glen did a good enough job of it since I doubt I would have been even that tame
 
Questioning authority happens to be a great thing.. If nobody had ever challenged Hitlers authority he would still be here today, probably taking control over the U.S, and wiping out the rest of the people he deemed as lesser beings.
 
It was already bad enough the books were concerning witchcraft, now they concern COMMUNISM, HOMOSEXUALITY and DISRESPECT FOR AUTHORITY.

Hrothgar, you know they banned Catcher in the Rye for almost the same reasons?

Regardless, you're probably living in a Constitutional Democracy where you're able to believe what you want to believe granted it doesn't revoke the rights of others.
 
I'm firmly in the "it wouldn't change the books, it didn't need to be in the story" sort of camp.

And I want to point out that tolerance and questioning authority aren't new things for her: they're extremely relevant throughout the books. Tolerance is pretty obvious (SPEW, blood purity, Lupin, etc.), and questioning authority, although not so much in the earlier books, is definitely prevalent in the later installments (most notably in Half-Blood Prince, where Harry rejects Scrimgeour's attempts to use Harry).

However, she's not really anti-authoritarian. She is, more or less, supporting the ideal of not believing/doing anything simply on the basis that someone had told you to do it. We see the downsides of blind neglect of authority (Order of the Pheonix, anybody?), and encouraging the formation of our own opinions. J.K. Rowling even said that later on, the trio goes to work at the reformed Ministry of Magic. They become the authority, which is really not an anti-authoritarian fate for the characters at all.

As for homosexuality- while I understand people thinking its wrong, I don't think that should prevent them from enjoying the books. If they are really that against it, they can view it as another character flaw- book seven placed quite a bit of importance on the idea that not even Dumbledore is perfect. Hell, Dumbledore neglected his family in favor of some pretty corrupted, oppressive ideals, I think that should be a bigger controversy than homosexuality.
 
cookie said:
Dumbledore being gay somehow makes sense in my head seeing how he resembles Ian Mckellen so much.
Click to expand...
Oh lol, beat me to it.

I was just about to comment on how Gandalf is played by a gay actor and now Dumbledore really is gay. This is awesome! The world needs more gay wizards.
 
Hrothgar said:
Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Dumbledore's outing and how it will affect your take on the potter series.
Click to expand...
It should be painfully obvious that if she had to mention it like this rather than bringing it up in the series then it has little to no impact at all on the book. If you're nonetheless willing to get rid of your books over this, then go ahead.

And perhaps that's why she did it, to show that a person being gay has no effect on 99% of life, other than that person.

She is a supporter and 'admirer' of dangerous communist mouthpiece Decca Mitford. She even named her daughter after her. After that, evidence can be found in the books themselves. The corrupt ministry is a giveaway. So is are the residents of Privet Drive, a perfect exhibit of failed democracy and capitalism. Hell, she even named the Phoenix 'fawkes'. If i'm not mistaken, he's the guy that tried to blow up parliament and kill the king. Excellent role model for children.
Click to expand...
This is your evidence that she's a communist? You're a fucking conspiracy theorist.

And you think that questioning authority is bad? Perhaps you want more of President Nixon, who claimed that everything the president does is by definition legal.
 
J.K. Rowling is not communist and if she is then so what? Here are some things you need to know

1. Communism is based of the fact that everyone in society is equal.

2. Communist does not = evil person

3. Communism was actually a good idea but the people who implemented it were not ready to accept the whole equality thing and pretty much fucked it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top