• Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      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.

      • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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!