comment: >
  
  Like I said, this isn’t intended to be a discussion of JKR’s commentary on the trans community, I added that so people wouldn’t debate it. 
  Also, you don’t agree with my take or you don’t agree that they’re offensive? How is that disputing my post?
  As for the Jewish stereotype, the little hats, the greed about money, the physical descriptions, hating wizards and thus being secretive, believing they alone are entitled to handle wealth, are all typical antisemitic commentary. I have no idea if it was intentional, but I do believe it appears antisemitic.
context: /u/thebaythoroughbred (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  House elves enjoying slavery and Hermione being mocked for SPEW: The house elves are brainwashed into thinking that they enjoy slavery, but it’s clearly presented to the reader how mistreated they are, even by the “good guys” like Sirius. I really grew to appreciate Hermione being mocked for SPEW by the other students, because she ends up being right-Kreacher betrays Sirius because he feels no loyalty to him. Dumbledore acknowledges it. Also, Sirius acknowledges it in GOF with Crouch mistreating Winky. It’s an interesting subplot.
  
  I actually agree with your broader point and the other examples, but strongly disagree with this one, the SPEW plot did end up being grossly pro-slavery.
  Kreacher's betrayal didn't justify SPEW's position, it justified the enslaver Dumbledore's position that people should be kinder to those they enslave. The end of the story is still Harry keeping Kreacher in enslaved status. Hermione ends up working for the Ministry to pass laws for the better treatment of enslaved elves.
  The underlying message is absolutely that young Hermione's radical abolitionist position was just as misguided as Sirius's casual disgregard of house elves, and that the truth is somewhere in the middle. >
  
  I do actually agree with your point, I didn’t even consider it in that way that yeah, the slaves still exist. Dumbledore offers wages to Dobby because he asks but it’s not like he offers it to any of the others freely. I’d mostly just appreciated that Sirius’s cruelty ended up being his downfall. Tbh Dumbledore is a dick anyways. 
  !delta for the SPEW, I stand corrected >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Genoscythe_ (221∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  Also, Sirius acknowledges it in GOF with Crouch mistreating Winky. It’s an interesting subplot. 
  
  You missed a major part of that plot ending mate. The plot resolution to slavery of a sapient race is that the slave owners should be nicer to their slaves. Not that they shouldn't have slaves. Not that slavery is bad. The house elfs aren't freed. Harry Potter doesn't even free his own slave at the end of the book. No, the conclusion is that slavery is perfectly find, so long as you treat your slaves well. And that is bullshit. And it's major bullshit at that. Calling it out on that is not nickpicking >
  
  I gave a delta to someone on this point already >
  
  I mean, do some people do this? Yes. But one person's nitpick is another person's obvious bigotry; I know even before the transphobia came out people were giving her shit for SPEW and for carelessly bringing up HIV/AIDS in regards to her werewolf characters. (Plus, I mean, even if she only meant illnesses that carry a stigma in general it is not a great look to have one of two people who have the  'illness with a stigma' be obsessed with giving that illness to children) >
  
  A quick Google search reveals discussions on the problematic nature of these topics going back at least a decade, and that's just what's at the top of the online list. You might say that Rowling's open transphobia has renewed scrutiny and brought more attention to the topics, but it definitely didn't create them >
  
  Harry Potter is by far the most popular thing in pop culture to analyze. Even Star Wars has less than 10% of the fanfiction.
  Digging into the books, and analyzing every detail is not new in the slightest, and has been going on since well before Rowling's infamy, it was happening well before the books were finished, even! People have written fanfics comparable in length to the books, and fanfiction on every element imaginable. At this point most any random take on the setting you can imagine probably exists. I'd be completely unsurprised if there was a fanfic where Harry reincarnates as an elf. 
  Wait, what the hell, I wrote that as a joke, and it turns out it's a whole category of fanfiction
  My point is, yes, Rowling's current reputation might have brought some more attention, but it was never lacking in the first place, obsessive analysis of all things HP has long been a thing. >
  
  Just saying, I don't think "amount of fanfiction" is a valid metric to analyze somethings pop cultural popularity. >
  
  Most of the critiques you're raising were popular before Rowling outed herself as a TERF. If anything, I think there is a big contingent of people who loved Harry Potter before the TERF revelation but now they pretend they always knew she was trouble because of these details. But the critiques were definitely out there.
  I think the werewolf/AIDS comparison is clumsy but not particularly exceptional. True Blood was created by a gay man and its vampire/homosexuality and hep V/AIDS analogies are no better. >
  
  Harry Potter is an incredibly popular franchise with a large and dedicated fanbase. Pretty much any work that has such a following will also have detractors. For about 10 years, a popular angle of attack has been to criticise perceived socially objectionable content. I'm sure Rowlings transphobia has increased the number and ferocity of the critics, but it doesn't explain it entirely. "Cho Chang" and SPEW complaints have been around for at least 10 years and Werewolf-AIDs is about 7 years old, while the transphobia controversy has only been going on for, say, three years. >
  
  It's not people nitpicking prejudice, it's people recognizing it. 
  You need extremely explicit bigotry for it to be recognizable on its own merit. In all other cases, you can easily have non-bigoted interpretations. For instance, your interpretation of Shacklebolt's name is by itself as valid (if not more so) than the racist interpretation. There was sufficient room there for the HP universe to exist without facing much criticism. 
  However, JKR's transphobia cuts down that room for interpretation significantly, since we can now connect the author's regressive perspective with the more unpleasant interpretations to give the latter more credibility. >
  
  The fact that people can make a lot of money feigning outrage is what leads to nitpicking prejudice. If people can make a more than comfortable living writing articles about how terrible someone's beloved art is, whether it's a book, movie, or song, they will. >
  
  How is the name Cho Chang racist? >
  
  Because it’s so stereotypically “Asian,” it just sounds like a variation of “ching chong.” Cho is also a Korean surname, not a Chinese first name. Rowling put a ton of hidden meaning into the names, so it just comes across as lazy and a racist stereotype, especially because she’s the only Asian character. >
  
  How can one name be more Asian than another? 
  Maybe one of Cho’s parents was of Korean descent and one was of Chinese descent. 
  The Patil twins are both of Asian ancestry. 
  How is Cho’s naming more “lazy” than any of the whimsical nonsense names Rowling came up with.? There’s a werewolf who has the Latin for moon in his name. There’s a family of bad guys who have the word bad in their name and named their kid dragon. The main bad guy has the French word for death in his name. This is just how Harry Potter characters are named. >
  
  I explain why it’s stereotypically Asian, because it sounds like a variation of “Ching Chong,” or any other offensive ridiculing of East Asian languages. 
  Why would she be called a Korean surname if she’s half Korean? Not a Korean first name? By that logic, if I’m half Spanish half English, my name going to be Lopez Smith. 
  The laziness is more prominent here because it’s laziness in regards to racism, not just calling lupin “Wolf wolf.” 
  Also, like I said, I just personally think it was lazy and could have been better chosen, unless it is meant to be a translation of chou chang. >
  
  It really doesn’t though. Unless you’re saying that any Asian name that’s alliterative is racist. 
  I swear to god I’m not kidding. I went to middle school with a kid named Lopez Smith. His brother’s name was Jesus Smith. Their mom was from El Salvador. 
  It’s only laziness I’m the sense that she wanted to give the girl who regularly burst into tears a name that sounded like the word for depressed in another language. >
  
  Like I said, it just sounds like an uneducated mocking Asian name, but my original post was actually saying that I don’t think it’s offensive, that’s why I included it in my points list. I think it could’ve been chosen better, but I don’t see a huge issue like others do. 
  That’s very funny, I was totally finding the most unlikely mix of those two nationalities. 
  Loads of people are saying her name is offensive, isn’t offensive, etc etc. Like I said in my post, I don’t think it deserves as much hate as it gets, I just think it could’ve been a more interesting name >
  
  JK Rowling isn't transphobic though, she's a feminist who is deeply concerned with upholding women's rights and helping vulnerable women.
  I don't agree with the examples you've listed and also dispute that the goblins are intended to be offensive stereotypes of Jewish people. The racism really is in the eye of the beholder there - if you read about the goblins in her books and think, those are Jews, that's on you.