I understand the context here, but if you genuinely wish, to have positive discussions with people, you should probably not call them “mundane”. People will assume you mean they are boring and dull.
Good advice, thank you. And this is why I hate JK Rowling. We had a perfectly good word for non-magic-users, and then she went and started a crusade to exterminate trans kids and we found out the books were super racist and ableist and bad. And now I’m not comfortable using her word, but I don’t have any good words for non-mages, so I’m using these other words that have other side effects I don’t intend. I wish I could say “muggle” in good conscience.
They’re not saying that Rowling co-opted anything. They’re saying that they used to use the term “muggle”, lifted from the HP books, as their go-to term for “non-magical people”, until Rowling went full mask-off TERF.
Which does mean that they lifted a term that is literally used in the books as a slur, and were like “OK, yeah, this is a good way to describe people who don’t share my interests.”
Ahh ok,. I remembered muggle was a slur in HP (Hermione cries because [mean blond kid] calls her a mug blood) and assumed they couldn’t be talking about that.
I made this assumption because I have this user tagged as “Narcissist is a slur.” And I remember why.
So my understanding is that it’s a good thing to use a fictional slur when the only definition for the word. But also, it’s a very bad thing to use a word based on a character from a Greek myth who exists solely to convey the idea described in the definition.
This implies that non-wizards were the abusers in Harry Potter and I don’t remember that being true.
Narcissus is a fictional character who was written exclusively to convey the idea that is described in the definition of the word based on his name*
Muggle is a fictional slur used by the ruling class in Harry Potter to denigrate people they don’t respect. It exists to be offensive.
I think it’s worth a bit of self reflection as to why you’ve embraced a word that was always a slur to use as a slur but get offended by the word “narcissist” to the point of ranting about it (in a past thread, not here).
I don’t think either is offensive so I hope you fall on the side of “neither word is that big of a deal”
Narcissus is a fictional character who was written exclusively to convey the idea that is described in the definition of the word based on his name*
No, the word was invented in the 19th century by Lord Byron and his contemporaries. Nobody ever made a word based on Narcissus until Lord Byron. Ovid was writing about Narcissus thousands of years before then.
Narcissus was written about once in the entirety of Greek mythology in a story about. A story about how self-obsession is a curse.
Lord Byron described a personality trait where one exhibits self-obsession to the point of harm and needed a word for it. He referenced the most famous example of self-obsession.
Yeah fuck Rowling, that piece of human garbage. It does leave a bad taste in your mouth, these days… The only English term I have figured out, that is usually understandable in the context, and triggers no negative connotations, is just “non-practicing”. Which then, is really inconvenient in form.
The thing is, even without Rowling ripping the mask off, muggle was always a fucked up term to use in this context because it’s literally describing a group of people who are treated as second class citizens on the basis of an immutable biological characteristic, a situation that is basically never interrogated throughout the books. The fundamental ideological divide between the villains and the heroes is basically “We should enslave or exterminate the muggles” vs “We should treat the muggles like unfortunate idiot children.” In retrospect, it wasn’t actually all that surprising that Rowling turned out to be a gender-essentialist (and I do say that as someone who used to be a fan).
Sidenote, this is why Witch Hat Atelier absolutely kicks the pants off of Harry Potter.
I have legitimately loved almost every witch anime I’ve seen (I like magicillusions Michael, my favorite quest for glory class was the wizard, go figure) I should convince the wife to watch this
Oh, very good call out. I was not even thinking about the negative associations with muggle! Just straight up jumped, without thinking, at the chance to insult Rowling.
I agree in the context of HP, and I also love Pointy Hat Studio.
But in this context, “muggles” are the people with the social power. Elsewhere in this thread, someone has said “you need psychiatric help if you think magic is real.” So sanism and stigma against mental illness are being used to enforce an ideology that denies the cultural experiences of magic users. Those are the actions of the privileged majority.
And our world is more like Pointy Hat than Harry Potter. Because anyone can learn magic. And unlike in Pointy Hat, it’s not a secret. Or at least, the secret isn’t being kept by us. It’s being kept by capitalists. If you want to be a mage, you can just learn magic. I’ll even teach you if you want. In fact, here’s a link to a spellbook you can read for free: https://usermanual.wiki/Document/PsychonautFieldManualSmall.49336827/view (disclaimer: Archtraitor Bluefluke is a good teacher but has problematic views on chakras and cultural appropriation. Please skip the chapter on chakras, it is a closed tradition. There are plenty of open spells you can learn).
So I don’t think “muggles” are being oppressed in our world, and I don’t think it’s possible for there to exist a meaningful slur against non-mages.
Here’s the thing; at no point did anyone suggest that real life “muggles” are some kind of oppressed class or that you were engaging in some bold new category of ‘-ism’ by using that term. You can use whatever word you want for “people who don’t do magic.” No one really gives a shit. But if your purpose in using that word was to entirely divorce of it’s original context as an oppressive term for a biologically distinct underclass… Why use the word? Why not just invent a completely new term instead? If it’s going to mean something almost entirely different, why carry over those associations?
Now, this is the point where the sane thing to do would be to say “Honestly, at the time when we co-opted the term we just hadn’t done the work of interrogating how messed up the original context was,” and I would completely respect that. Because as I have just stated, I was a fan of those books too. I also let a lot of stuff slide that I really shouldn’t have, and it wasn’t until later that I went back and re-examined the material and started to really piece together just how fucked up Rowling’s worldview is, even as expressed in the context of her children’s stories. So I’m just as guilty as anyone else is in that regard. None of this is a call-out, just a call for further examination.
Anyway, thank you for the offer of the primer, but if I want to learn more about spellcasting I have at least a dozen or so friends I can consult for their expertise on paganism, heathenry, witchcraft, or chaos magick. None of whom have ever tried to use the terms “chakra” and “sephirot” interchangeably, which suggests a deep misunderstanding of either tantra, kabbalah, or both. Lovely art though.
I understand the context here, but if you genuinely wish, to have positive discussions with people, you should probably not call them “mundane”. People will assume you mean they are boring and dull.
Good advice, thank you. And this is why I hate JK Rowling. We had a perfectly good word for non-magic-users, and then she went and started a crusade to exterminate trans kids and we found out the books were super racist and ableist and bad. And now I’m not comfortable using her word, but I don’t have any good words for non-mages, so I’m using these other words that have other side effects I don’t intend. I wish I could say “muggle” in good conscience.
I’m a normal person who doesn’t think he can use magic because of talking to a chatbot too much
What word did she co-opt for non-magic users
They’re not saying that Rowling co-opted anything. They’re saying that they used to use the term “muggle”, lifted from the HP books, as their go-to term for “non-magical people”, until Rowling went full mask-off TERF.
Which does mean that they lifted a term that is literally used in the books as a slur, and were like “OK, yeah, this is a good way to describe people who don’t share my interests.”
Ahh ok,. I remembered muggle was a slur in HP (Hermione cries because [mean blond kid] calls her a mug blood) and assumed they couldn’t be talking about that.
I made this assumption because I have this user tagged as “Narcissist is a slur.” And I remember why.
So my understanding is that it’s a good thing to use a fictional slur when the only definition for the word. But also, it’s a very bad thing to use a word based on a character from a Greek myth who exists solely to convey the idea described in the definition.
Narcissus of Greek myth never abused anyone, unless you count fighting back against Ameinias, who sexually harassed him. While he was 16.
This implies that non-wizards were the abusers in Harry Potter and I don’t remember that being true.
Narcissus is a fictional character who was written exclusively to convey the idea that is described in the definition of the word based on his name*
Muggle is a fictional slur used by the ruling class in Harry Potter to denigrate people they don’t respect. It exists to be offensive.
I think it’s worth a bit of self reflection as to why you’ve embraced a word that was always a slur to use as a slur but get offended by the word “narcissist” to the point of ranting about it (in a past thread, not here).
I don’t think either is offensive so I hope you fall on the side of “neither word is that big of a deal”
No, the word was invented in the 19th century by Lord Byron and his contemporaries. Nobody ever made a word based on Narcissus until Lord Byron. Ovid was writing about Narcissus thousands of years before then.
Narcissus was written about once in the entirety of Greek mythology in a story about. A story about how self-obsession is a curse.
Lord Byron described a personality trait where one exhibits self-obsession to the point of harm and needed a word for it. He referenced the most famous example of self-obsession.
That is how many things get their names.
Yeah fuck Rowling, that piece of human garbage. It does leave a bad taste in your mouth, these days… The only English term I have figured out, that is usually understandable in the context, and triggers no negative connotations, is just “non-practicing”. Which then, is really inconvenient in form.
The thing is, even without Rowling ripping the mask off, muggle was always a fucked up term to use in this context because it’s literally describing a group of people who are treated as second class citizens on the basis of an immutable biological characteristic, a situation that is basically never interrogated throughout the books. The fundamental ideological divide between the villains and the heroes is basically “We should enslave or exterminate the muggles” vs “We should treat the muggles like unfortunate idiot children.” In retrospect, it wasn’t actually all that surprising that Rowling turned out to be a gender-essentialist (and I do say that as someone who used to be a fan).
Sidenote, this is why Witch Hat Atelier absolutely kicks the pants off of Harry Potter.
didn’t they just release an anime? how was that?
Genuinely incredible. Imagine if Studio Ghibli said “Fuck it, we’re doing TV now.” That’s the animation and directing quality in every episode.
I have legitimately loved almost every witch anime I’ve seen (I like
magicillusions Michael, my favorite quest for glory class was the wizard, go figure) I should convince the wife to watch thisOh, very good call out. I was not even thinking about the negative associations with muggle! Just straight up jumped, without thinking, at the chance to insult Rowling.
I agree in the context of HP, and I also love Pointy Hat Studio.
But in this context, “muggles” are the people with the social power. Elsewhere in this thread, someone has said “you need psychiatric help if you think magic is real.” So sanism and stigma against mental illness are being used to enforce an ideology that denies the cultural experiences of magic users. Those are the actions of the privileged majority.
And our world is more like Pointy Hat than Harry Potter. Because anyone can learn magic. And unlike in Pointy Hat, it’s not a secret. Or at least, the secret isn’t being kept by us. It’s being kept by capitalists. If you want to be a mage, you can just learn magic. I’ll even teach you if you want. In fact, here’s a link to a spellbook you can read for free: https://usermanual.wiki/Document/PsychonautFieldManualSmall.49336827/view (disclaimer: Archtraitor Bluefluke is a good teacher but has problematic views on chakras and cultural appropriation. Please skip the chapter on chakras, it is a closed tradition. There are plenty of open spells you can learn).
So I don’t think “muggles” are being oppressed in our world, and I don’t think it’s possible for there to exist a meaningful slur against non-mages.
Here’s the thing; at no point did anyone suggest that real life “muggles” are some kind of oppressed class or that you were engaging in some bold new category of ‘-ism’ by using that term. You can use whatever word you want for “people who don’t do magic.” No one really gives a shit. But if your purpose in using that word was to entirely divorce of it’s original context as an oppressive term for a biologically distinct underclass… Why use the word? Why not just invent a completely new term instead? If it’s going to mean something almost entirely different, why carry over those associations?
Now, this is the point where the sane thing to do would be to say “Honestly, at the time when we co-opted the term we just hadn’t done the work of interrogating how messed up the original context was,” and I would completely respect that. Because as I have just stated, I was a fan of those books too. I also let a lot of stuff slide that I really shouldn’t have, and it wasn’t until later that I went back and re-examined the material and started to really piece together just how fucked up Rowling’s worldview is, even as expressed in the context of her children’s stories. So I’m just as guilty as anyone else is in that regard. None of this is a call-out, just a call for further examination.
Anyway, thank you for the offer of the primer, but if I want to learn more about spellcasting I have at least a dozen or so friends I can consult for their expertise on paganism, heathenry, witchcraft, or chaos magick. None of whom have ever tried to use the terms “chakra” and “sephirot” interchangeably, which suggests a deep misunderstanding of either tantra, kabbalah, or both. Lovely art though.
Honestly, at the time when we co-opted the term we just hadn’t done the work of interrogating how messed up the original context was
Not that I’m sane, of course!