jaydensmommie replied to your post: Okay, internet
Did you just start it? Because if I remember correctly it’s gone by like the fourth episode. It was really really terrible with the laugh track.
I’ve seen it before (like twice?) but I’m watching it right now. And I’m drinking. So that’s a thing. And it’s annoying stupid laugh track.
Sorkin is foreshadowing Ainsley Hayes two years in advance and on a different show.
I know someone out there has somehow stripped the laugh track out of Sports Night and put it on some illegal site. Find it for me. Please. Before I jump off a cliff.
I’m gonna corrupt the shit out of them.
because centaurs have this weird quirk of raping people in all of their legends, and then a bunch of angry centaur dudes cart of a woman. who then has clear signs of ptsd and a violent reaction to the sound of hoofs.
I disagree. I think that Umbridge was traumatized by a herd of centaurs because a) they are, except for Firenze, not particularly nice to humans; and b) because Umbridge is species-ist. Imagine a KKK member being beaten up by a group of blacks. The KKKer would be traumatized not only by being beaten up but by the beating being perpetrated by a group he views as distinctly less than.
Also, I imagine getting trampled by horses is pretty damn traumatizing to begin with.
#um no #centaurs rape people #this is a part of their mythology #it’s what they do #period #i don’t think someone who did as much freakin’ research as jkr somehow overlooked that #centaurs rape people - specifically women #and EVEN IF THEY WEREN’T CENTAURS #IT WOULD STILL BE IMPLIED RAPE #a bunch of angry dudes drag a screaming woman into the woods?
You’re completely overlooking the fact that she’s a bigot and would be upset by this even if they were women. Also, do we know that they’re all male? I don’t have the book here. Also, the original post that inspired all this uses one source, and specifically says at the end:
Please note that this is a feminist reading of a text. It does not mean that I believe Rowling intended for these things to happen. When a work is published, it becomes something that is up for interpretation by many different disciplines. A feminist reading of a text finds hidden meanings and reads against the grain - it does not say anything about the author’s intentions.
I just don’t see a violent gang rape being included in Harry Potter. I don’t disagree that you can make that argument, but you can make all kinds of arguments. You can read it through all kinds of viewpoints from various disciplines. That’s what academics do. It may have little or nothing to do with the actual story. As someone says in the comments:
I think it’s an interesting reading and agree with Liz in that her take on it is based on an idea, which she further researched. It’s not a absolute truth, it’s a feminist reading. You could also do a Marxist reading of Harry Potter and say that wizardry is presented as the socialist alternative to the capitalist human world (I don’t actually think that but I do think a feasible argument could be made for that). So does that make Rowling a Communist? I doubt it.
Also, please don’t respond with a snotty gif and then entirely in tags. It makes responding really frustrating, as I have to retype them into the body of the post lest people think they’re mine.
[added from other reblog] Also, if you’re going to post this with “#jkrowling is objectively terrible so….” as the tag, I’m pretty much going to not take you seriously. J.K. Rowling is not“objectively terrible”. In fact, very few if any people are “objectively terrible”, because “terrible” isn’t an objective thing.
Source: snowdarkred #tw rape #haha no #there are a lot of terrible things in harry potter #like drugging someone and raping them (tom riddle’s mom) #like genocide (haha and HOW) #like child abuse (haha no food for harry! but that’s not abuse because jkr says so!) #like murder (and HOW) #like torture (and HOW) #like ‘bad people’ being ~fat~ (the dursleys umbridge fudge etc) #like slutshaming (hello ginny and her two boyfriends) #also: copypaste if you want to repsond to tags
Managing to both be rude and not respond to my arguments? I’m impressed.
Oh, I see. You think you responded to one sentence of what I said (“I just don’t see a violent gang rape being included in Harry Potter.”) Which you didn’t even do. Giving me examples of other bad things being included doesn’t have anything to do with me feeling that a violent gang rape wouldn’t be in there. I’m happy to explain why I believe that just as soon as you address the others points I made. And, you know, act like a grownup and don’t respond with gifs and a bunch of tags rather than sentences.
“#jkrowling is objectively terrible so….” kind of reveals your biases here. It’s hard to take a discussion what started as a thoughtful feminist reading of a text seriously when that’s your argument.
Professor Umbridge was lying in a bed opposite them, gazing up at the ceiling …. Since she had returned to the castle she had not, as far as any of them knew, uttered a single word. Nobody really knew what was wrong with her, either. Her usually neat mousy hair was very untidy and there were still bits of twigs and leaves in it, but otherwise she seemed to be quite unscathed.
‘Madam Pomfrey says she’s just in shock,’ whispered Hermione.
‘Sulking, more like,’ said Ginny.
‘Yeah, she shows signs of life if you do this,’ said Ron, and with his tongue he made soft clip-clopping noises. Umbridge sat bolt upright, looking around wildly.
‘Anything wrong, Professor?’ called Madam Pomfrey, poking her head around her office door.
‘No … no …’ said Umbridge, sinking back into her pillows. ‘No, I must have been dreaming …’
Hermione and Ginny muffled their laughter in the bedclothes.
Also, if you’re going to post this with “#jkrowling is objectively terrible so….” as the tag, I’m pretty much going to not take you seriously. J.K. Rowling is not “objectively terrible”. In fact, very few if any people are “objectively terrible”, because “terrible” isn’t an objective thing.
(Source: snowdarkred)
because centaurs have this weird quirk of raping people in all of their legends, and then a bunch of angry centaur dudes cart of a woman. who then has clear signs of ptsd and a violent reaction to the sound of hoofs.
I disagree. I think that Umbridge was traumatized by a herd of centaurs because a) they are, except for Firenze, not particularly nice to humans; and b) because Umbridge is species-ist. Imagine a KKK member being beaten up by a group of blacks. The KKKer would be traumatized not only by being beaten up but by the beating being perpetrated by a group he views as distinctly less than.
Also, I imagine getting trampled by horses is pretty damn traumatizing to begin with.
#um no #centaurs rape people #this is a part of their mythology #it’s what they do #period #i don’t think someone who did as much freakin’ research as jkr somehow overlooked that #centaurs rape people - specifically women #and EVEN IF THEY WEREN’T CENTAURS #IT WOULD STILL BE IMPLIED RAPE #a bunch of angry dudes drag a screaming woman into the woods?
You’re completely overlooking the fact that she’s a bigot and would be upset by this even if they were women. Also, do we know that they’re all male? I don’t have the book here. Also, the original post that inspired all this uses one source, and specifically says at the end:
Please note that this is a feminist reading of a text. It does not mean that I believe Rowling intended for these things to happen. When a work is published, it becomes something that is up for interpretation by many different disciplines. A feminist reading of a text finds hidden meanings and reads against the grain - it does not say anything about the author’s intentions.
I just don’t see a violent gang rape being included in Harry Potter. I don’t disagree that you can make that argument, but you can make all kinds of arguments. You can read it through all kinds of viewpoints from various disciplines. That’s what academics do. It may have little or nothing to do with the actual story. As someone says in the comments:
I think it’s an interesting reading and agree with Liz in that her take on it is based on an idea, which she further researched. It’s not a absolute truth, it’s a feminist reading. You could also do a Marxist reading of Harry Potter and say that wizardry is presented as the socialist alternative to the capitalist human world (I don’t actually think that but I do think a feasible argument could be made for that). So does that make Rowling a Communist? I doubt it.
Also, please don’t respond with a snotty gif and then entirely in tags. It makes responding really frustrating, as I have to retype them into the body of the post lest people think they’re mine.
the queen. via
