Ben Stovall Blog

Tag: politics

  • Harry Potter and the Author Who Damaged Its Legacy

    Harry Potter and the Author Who Damaged Its Legacy

    I have this vivid memory from when I was a child. I don’t remember where we were or why we were there, but my brother and I were in a hotel room with my mom and an ad for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone came on the TV. My brother and I were enraptured, and for weeks we quoted the “… or worse, expelled.” exchange. It’s the first time I remember hearing about the franchise.

    I couldn’t tell you how many days or weeks there were between then and when my mom took us to see the movie, but we loved it. And I was just a kid, not keeping up with movie releases or anything at the time, so when we went next year to see a sequel I was blown away even further.

    I went with my mom to nearly every Harry Potter release in theaters. I got the books as they were released (though I only ended up reading Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows before seeing their movies). I think the ending of Goblet of Fire just made me need to know what was going to happen next – more than the earlier movies had, anyway.

    Between the Wizarding World and Lord of the Rings, I was certainly not starved for fantasy stories growing up. Then, we got an Xbox 360 in 2006 with The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, eventually got Dragon Age: Origins, and I’d begun playing Runescape and World of Warcraft and my fate was sealed. This was my bag, sword fights and wizards and dragons: that shit was my jam.

    Harry Potter was incredibly important to me growing up. I’d watch and rewatch these movies with my mom or on my own. So much so, that when Rowling first starting getting a bit of pushback for “adding context” to her books via twitter, I didn’t see what the fuss was. I mean, it was stupid to insist that the wizards were just shitting themselves, but I guess I didn’t really consider it true, you know? I supposed I’d already gotten into the “Death of the Author” camp, and didn’t care for her “intent” beyond the written words.

    The problem, then, is that weird tweets isn’t at all where it stopped.

    J.K. Rowling isn’t just desperately grasping onto her work as a means to remain relevant long after its release, she’s using the platform her success catapulted her into to advocate against human rights. Rowling is a card-carrying Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, using all the money and fame she’s accumulated to make life harder for an incredibly small and marginalized population of people just trying to live their lives. People that might’ve found solace in her work in their youth.

    And, for me, that was enough for me to decide that insofar as my money goes, it wouldn’t be going toward Rowling. I disengaged with her other work and the fandom. And I was able to set it down. I can accept that these books were influential and formative for my youth, but I also choose to leave them there.

    I also recognize that others don’t have any imperative to do the same. I don’t presume that the standards I hold myself to should apply to everyone else. I would, perhaps, merely advocate for others to endeavor to be aware of where their money is going and consider that when making nonessential purchases, but I know, for the most part, people who bought this game or still enjoy these movies are just trying to relax after working to live their own lives. And for that, I wouldn’t condemn them. The energy and time expended by many on attacking others for not joining them in their boycott could be better used elsewhere.

    There’s been a lot of instances lately, it seems, where people use social media to attack their allies for failing to be perfect allies. That left-wing spaces have a tendency to eat their own, and the fact of the matter is that they kind of do. Because our true opponents do not care about our disappointment in them, many of them revel in it. There are people who respond to learning about Hogwarts: Legacy’s transphobic originator and antisemitic narrative and choose to reply “Well now I am buying two copies.” We are unable to shame these people into reasonable action, so we instead attack those who do worry that they may do harm with their actions. And that is not activism – more often than not, it is little more than cruelty. Do good in your communities, help real people, donate, discuss these issues and educate those we can – whatever you can manage.

    But I’m also a cis white man, so what the hell does my opinion count for anyway?

    As always, thank you for reading. Good luck out there, everyone. Remember that you are loved.

  • Roe vs Wade

    It’s difficult to write about something like this. We’d seen it coming like a car crash in slow motion, inevitable and unstoppable since the hypocrisy of the Republican party in 2020. Now, a right to choose guaranteed across our nation by the Supreme Court in 1972 has been overturned by a dubious cast of that same institution. And Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t want to stop there – image below from the third page of his concurring statement on the decision.

    For those unaware, the original decision, and the decision of these other cases on Justice Thomas’s warpath were ruled to be protected by an implied “Right to Privacy” guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. From the fifth amendment: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law.” And from the fourteenth: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    Overturning Roe vs Wade is chipping away at this Right to Privacy by disallowing women that privacy when discussing medical treatment with their doctors. It is no business of mine, my neighbor, my senator, or anyone else what a woman and her doctor must do for her health. That decision is for that woman to make alone. And removing the federally granted guarantee for that choice to be available nationwide is unacceptable. Deplorable.

    It’s difficult to write about something like this. Because things just seem to be getting worse and worse. I write a blog focused on D&D and media criticism. I write fantasy stories. But if what I say can convince one person to reconsider their stance, it’s worth it right? If someone in my small audience reads this post and thinks, “I hadn’t thought of it that way,” that’s a victory.

    So, let’s get into more detail, I guess.

    Republican Hypocrisy

    Back in 2016, during the last year of Obama’s presidency, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed. As part of his presidential duties, Obama was set to nominate his replacement. The Republican party controlled the Senate at the time, and they didn’t want Scalia’s seat to be taken by a left leaning justice. An informal rule in the senate from 1992 had a lot of precedence in this situation, saying that a nominated justice should at a minimum be someone playing closer to the center of the political spectrum. Enter Merrick Garland.

    Back in 2010, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch had publicly said that Garland would be a “consensus nominee.” One who would easily win confirmation in the Senate. In March of 2016 when Obama announced his nomination, he said “I have selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness, and excellence. Presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term; neither should a Senator.”

    The Republican-controlled Senate decided that they might consider Garland if Hillary Clinton was to win in November’s election, as he’d be less liberal than any nominee she would put forward. So they were happy to have him only if they were going to lose again. Their principals about the people having a say in this vacancy since it occurred in the last year of the presidency were going to be thrown out the window regardless should the election not end favorably for them.

    And they doubled down on this hypocrisy in 2020 with the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rammed Amy Coney Barrett through the process despite the election occurring during the process. Lindsey Graham, who’d gone so far as to invite everyone to use his words against him should he do the same in 2020 after 2016.

    Lindsay Graham “Use my words against me”

    Whether you believe that an upcoming election should serve as a delay for the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice or not doesn’t matter to the Republican Party. They only care about furthering their agenda. There are no codes or morals they will not sully. They do not stand for anything.

    It’s a game to them. It’s just about racking up the most points, the most victories, and plastering a smile on their face like it’s their favorite football team and you were backing their rivals in one of the biggest games of the season. They don’t care that it actually affects people’s lives.

    What Exactly do They Mean by Pro-Life?

    People that are against abortion say they are pro-life. That they value life. That’s what it’s all about, right? Saving lives! Making sure a baby can grow up happy and healthy.

    Yet these same people are often against legislation that would improve lives. They advocate against universal healthcare. They don’t want the social safety nets to be expanded. They are in favor of the death penalty for crimes. They refused to wear masks during a pandemic. They refused to be vaccinated to protect both themselves and those around them. Their legislators cut programs to feed hungry children in schools. They shrug their shoulders when a school gets shot up and children die. ‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens is a title the Onion has used TWENTY-FOUR times since 2014.

    Are these people really pro-life? Do these people really value life above everything else? Or are they interested in control? In ensuring women don’t have access to a procedure that might save their lives?

    Why do these people have such a fixation on punitive pregnancy? “If you didn’t want a child, you shouldn’t have had sex.” It takes two to tango, so why isn’t there any legislation in the works to ensure men don’t abandon the children they sow with unprotected sex? Or even in the rare event that the contraceptives don’t work? Why is the case that guaranteed access to contraceptives on Justice Thomas’s warpath?

    What EXACTLY do they mean when they say they’re “pro-life?”

    I guess they’re arresting women for Miscarriages.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

    This woman was charged for losing her unborn baby after she was shot. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48789836

    Conclusion

    It really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s read my work what side of this issue I come down on. Ebonskar presents an emphatically clear opinion on a fascist state and its practices. The Adventures of Red Watch have centered around dealing with unwavering zealotry and how dangerous it is in each installment.

    There’s a lot more that could be and has been said on these subjects. It’s out there. Thank you for reading. I hope you learned something.