I don’t feel like digging through JKR’s body of work to find perfect quoted examples but if you feel inclined go back over Hermione’s advocacy yourself she is framed by author as “smuggly” shaking her collecting tin, cornering people in house common spaces until people acquiesce just to get her to go away. Every time her protest is brought up it is usually paired with some kind of value judgement device where the reader is made aware of the apathy of her friends or the people she’s advocating to or the annoyance she is on people in her space.

What Hermione does is a reasonable response for a person her age. What the author creates around that is a atmosphere of hopelessness where Hermione feels personally fufilled by the virtue of the cause but everything in the narrative conspires to make sure you know she’s tilting at windmills.

“By and large the system works” under most circumstances the system (elvish slavery) functions as intended/ without victims.

I mean when you look at Harry Potter through a magnifying glass it’s actually very pro status quo with a lot of issues breaking down to “the wrong people in charge” a lot of gestures made towards the sort of social problems of the society… Like look at house elves. We meet Dobby and everyone agrees that slave holding situation isn’t ideal but once we meet more house elves we learn that Dobby is kind of a weirdo and that they are effectively a sentient slave race with only exceptions like Dobby taking issue with being bound. Hermione sees this as a legitimate issue as any potential elf could be a Dobby but then great detail is placed about how annoying and virtually pointless her advocacy is but the rest of her society and the framing effectively informs the reader - “don’t think about house elves. Dobby is fine. It’s not your problem and shouldn’t be.” It’s framed as a problem to be solved on a small scale interpersonal basis because by and large the system works.

It’s generally difficult for people to critically read a narrative that throws up that many hairpin bends particularly when the set ups are made in the book that these things are social problems… but then never paid off. That it happens a fair amount innthe books is a fairly confusing yarnball. It feels progressive in the same way a company mission statement that is not being enacted in any real way feels progressive.

People are going to feel what they feel. As a trans person I recognize that this isn’t for me. It’s a call to action to get cis people to step up and perform heroics. It’s a saviour trope with all the baggage attached.

It’s not a bad message but it also isn’t flattering to be depicted as the battered rat barely standing. It’s art. Art is going to strike you differently depending on where you stand. Both takes are valid because it’s subjective but the real pernicious bit here is somebody from a group featured in that art is telling people here how that art makes them feel and the immediate reaction is to tell them they are wrong to feel that way. That isn’t kind. It’s not empathetic. It is demanding unconditional gratitude from someone you feel owes it without reservation of quality of help recieved.

Sadly it’s true right now we as a community don’t really have the luxury of picking between good and bad allyship, we need all we can get… But it’s still kinda a shitty.

It’s not nessisarily skewing the narrative, it’s just not providing context. Terrorist acts have a narrow definition in Canadian law. This guy could be a spree killer motivated by racism but unless that killing is for premeditated ideological, religious or political reasons to coerce a specific result or change of policy from the population / Government it doesn’t fall under the definition.

No manifesto or claim of reasoning or connections found to groups that claim responsibility - no terrorist designation.

A terrorist attack has a narrow definition in Canadian law where it is specifically part of a premeditated ideological, religious or political attempt to influence government policy or to intimidate a section of the public to a specific end. Basically if this guy didn’t have a manifesto or ever stated his reason within this rubric and was not part of a group that has specific aims then it follows under a regular old spree killer homicide unless it was racially motivated in which case it is also a hate crime.

Whether one uses cars or guns is not a factor in determining what counts as a terrorist act. The reporting on this has not been great ar clearing up this point.

There’s a very specific rubric for what counts as a terrorist attack in Canada. Probably the level of calculation and premeditation involved was a factor and that he’s not a part of an ideologically organized group that is trying to influence behaviour of a government or political body.

A spontaneous hate crime made against a population is technically not a terrorist attack by Canadian definition. To count you have to have done it for a narrow slice of very specific reasons.

Hey can we not do this?

While there is an endemic issue with toxic variations of masculinity that looks at sex as a tool of domination erasing the experience of people who have been assaulted by women and other gender minorities isn’t the way to go about this. There are lots of ways to get this point across without turning around and being gross towards other groups affected by abuse.

Sloganizing these issues in this way doesn’t make the allies needed to combat abuse.