this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
168 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15897 readers
1 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] autismdragon@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

I dont think thats universal, Death of the Author is kind of waning in popularity, partially over shit like this, and on the other hand shit like realizing Rowling's politics cant be seperated from her work.

That said, i do preach DotA under certain conditions (usually queer or ND headcanons) frequently, however

  1. DotA doesnt mean i cant just... disagree with someones interpetation
  2. DotA doesnt mean you can straight up ignore the actual text, it means Word of God isnt the only valid interpretation
  3. I never really personally went as far as Barthes in discounting authorial intent. I think it is material, just not the end all be all.
  4. DotA doesnt mean we shouldnt oppose people interpreting nonreactionairy works reactionarily