Permanently Deleted
With JKKK Rowling always being an ass on Twitter, it's good to remind people that her politics have always been garbage.
the wand can cast a spell that just sort of kills you, no take-backsies or blocking it, and canonically you can cast that spell without speaking if you're good enough.
that's a gun lmao. and they hand them out to 12 year olds.
Technically the 12 year olds aren't capable of casting it, because it requires an unspecified amount of magical power to actually use. Moody (well, Marty Crouch in disguise) says that a whole class of 14 year old wizards could all try to cast it on him and it wouldn't do anything, and 16-year old Harry later tries to use the Torture spell but he only manages to cause momentary pain with it.
If I wanted to be charitable, I would say that the spells available to a wizard are reflective of their personality and outlook on the world - but since it's JKR and her writing's pretty simplistic it's just a case of "you have to be evil to use the evil magic".
I love it when my leftist posts are sandwiched right between the loli hentai board and r/jailbait refugees :disgost:
What I've always hated is how the Weasley family is presented as being the poorest, least respected wizard family in all of the UK. The implied reason for their poverty is how large the family is. They had too many kids (6 is too many) and thus can't afford to spread their money around. Despite how impoverished they supposedly are, the Weasleys live in a huge house with a garden, the father has a comfortable government job, and all the children go to a fancy wizard boarding school. They have food, a house, clothes, and education. The only negative consequences of their poverty seem to be things like they have patches on their robes, they can't afford candy sometimes, and Ron had to put tape on his wand rather than get a new one. They eventually escape poverty because one of them starts a successful practical joke business.
Rowling is either presenting poverty as some kind of silly aesthetics that happens because of individual lifestyle choices or she's presenting wizard society as so above human society that even their dirt poor still associate with their wealthiest. Also Harry could have given the Weasley family less than 1% of his total wealth (he hardly used it) and he would have more than quadrupled their life savings. But he didn't.
Edit: Just did the math. The Weasley family is presented as having a handful of the silver coins and exactly 1 gold coin. Rowling has stated Harry had a net worth of 319,995 gold coins. 1% of his wealth would have increased the Weasley's total worth by 3200%.
They should've lived in a wizarding council flat, but maybe only Slytherins live in those.
wizard society as so above human society that even their dirt poor still associate with their wealthiest
I think that's what Rowling was going for.
The Weasley family is presented as having a handful of the silver coins and exactly 1 gold coin. Rowling has stated Harry had a net worth of 319,995 gold coins.
goddamn, that's some peak joke-ass-rowling neolib shit
if you assume a middle class US family has $100k in net worth (might be optimistic) that's like me inheriting $30 billion and not giving any to even my best friend
harry potter is really a dumb book
Actually last night I was considering the most neolib thing are the types of jobs wizards have. It's a society where they can fly and conjure things from thin air. Yet the main occupations they have are: teacher, magic cop, and small business owner (whole lot of these). Why do the wizards even need money?
Also the main political division among wizards is if they should actively genocide muggles or just let muggles suffer through inaction.
living in a post-scarcity society but recreating scarcity anyway
yup it's lib time
