sudneo

I actually disagree that a book is "problematic" because it touches, presents, includes etc. any topic that morally we disagree with. Not every book has to be a manifesto or a depiction for a moral and just society, which is why I find most of the arguments against HP to be weak (some points were listed in a sibling comment thread).

subjecting any popular series to close reading with an eye for affront is likely to show up its flaws

I am quite sure this is true for any book (especially fiction), in fact. Which is why I think it's an activity that makes sense only to justify the pre-existing opinion about the book, rather than having a value in itself.

if you have the chance to pick it up second-hand I'd encourage you to see if you can finish it.

To be clear, I know that Dan Brown stuff is garbage. I just have seen people who I think never read a book in the previous 10 years read that one (in translation though, so who knows...). So the book must at least be interesting and intriguing to keep the attention of people who are not used to read. For me this means not fitting in the "terrible writing" category, but maybe we mean different things by that.

The DaVinci code sold 80 millions copies. The first HP book alone sold 120 millions, and the whole series 600 millions, being the most sold series of books.

Not only they are one order of magnitude apart, but I think they sold for different reasons.

I haven't read Dan Brown's stuff, but I also doubt it's terribly written by the way. Books that capture the interest of a population more and more unused to read can be shallow, banal, inconsistent, whatever, but not terribly written. Casual readers can hardly finish a terribly written book. In any case, HP books are children's books. Children or teenagers are not literary critics, it's not about reading "great literature", however you define that.

I also can't help to notice the coincidence that all the HP critiques started appearing in the last years, when the author went bananas. A series this popular, which ended in 2007, and suddenly 15 years later people notice that it's "terribly written"? This smells more to me of a damnatio memoriae than genuine critique.

Honestly, I read the books translated + I could not and still cannot relate with the issues that I often see raised against the book (like the way diversity is represented). Especially when I was a kid, those issues were so not in my mind that I would never ever flag as issues.

To make an example: for me as a kid, slavery was something that mostly had to do with the roman empire. The whole debacle about house elves etc. is completely disconnected from real societal probelsm, recent history etc. I have always rooted for the elves because that's what I was pushed to do emotionally, but without really ever reflecting on slavery as a whole. I am picking this example because it's one of the most used ones to critique the book.

In general I also believe that authors can build worlds that do not represent their views, I find a lot of the critique I have read a stretch and I am especially suspicious that most of these critiques started appearing recently. I believe people started with the thesis (she is an asshole) and then backtracked the analysis trying to find anything at all in the books that could support the conclusion (rather than viceversa).

Either way, all of this is relatively irrelevant. People can like or dislike books - especially fiction - freely. For me the book is mostly associated with a vibe of being young, thinking about those stories, relating with the characters etc., not with the actual books content. So it's more about thinking back of childhood/past than appreciating the literary value.

I found it very fun, interesting and captivating when I read those books (that is, when I was maybe 13-16?). If it was "terribly written" it wouldn't have made the success it did, and also the target audience is generally not made of literary critics.

So I don't think there is much to judge, especially since many people's good opinion on the story is based on their lived experience with it, from when they were younger etc. And you can't erase that from your life because the author turned out to be an asshole 15 years later.

Plus, it implies that loneliness is just a matter of having a partner. While this is definitely an important aspect, loneliness is general intended (in the surveys etc.) as being literally alone a large percentage of time, including not having friends or acquaintances.

This is very deresponsibilizing though. I don't think you can explain mass phenomena with it. To me it seems more reasonable to conclude that gender is not that relevant here and that social conditions, education, family upbringing etc. are.

how much they have been manipulated since childhood to be against their own autonomy

And how do you explain poor people voting against their economic interests, immigrants voting for xenophobic parties etc.? I don't think that individual abuse can be used to explain every case, it feels as a way to rationalize something you can't justify otherwise (e.g., it's unimaginable how a woman would vote against her own autonomy). I do believe that everyone in a way is a victim of some kind of influence, marketing, societal pressure, class violence, different biases etc., but we need to draw a line at some point for people to be responsible for their shitty ideas.

To make an example, an immigrant who went through a tough immigration process, with all the anxiety and insecurity it caused, and finally managed to make it is probably going to suffer heavily of survivorship bias and it's not impossible they will be xenophobic against illegal immigrants and perhaps will even vote for whom proposes harsher immigration policies. You can argue that society abused them etc., but they are still responsible for their ideas.

So my point is that I don't disagree with you, but we can find exogenous reasons for why people have shitty ideas in all cases. Doing so though we deresponsibilize the individual from checking with themself and reflecting on their own positions. I think it's fair to consider that some people simply have shitty ideas, are greedy, selfish, racist, classist, or whatever else, without necessarily trying to trace back those ideas to some external factor.

Yes, I am quite sure that in most countries the distribution of women/men within those groups are not equal and unbalanced towards men.

That said, being a member of the actual group doesn't mean not being in those people social groups, accepting or even sharing some of their ideas etc.

There are plenty of women in far right/neo-fascist etc. groups, and often people from those groups have relationships with other people from those groups. Your comment gives very much the impression that only males are fascists, which is absolutely not my experience dealing with Forza Nuova/Casapound people (both neo-fascists parties) in my youth.

I also see the male loneliness epidemic as an orthogonal problem to males being fascists, but that's yet another topic.

which is who I was referring to

So when you said

money you pay them go to support a facist

You meant Trump...Sorry, I am going to doubt that. I am quite sure that sentence meant "money you pay to Proton go to their CEO (a fascist)". Why money would go to Trump otherwise...is Proton sponsoring Trump? Hence my comment.

Alternatively, your comment was completely off-topic and unrelated to the post. Possible, I simply assumed you were not lost on the internet.

Wire transfer can still go through intermediaries, although I generally don't think these companies are in the business of selling data.

For example, a bank can use a service to connect to a scheme (say SEPA, or FPS, or whatever).

Source: I have been employed by a company who does this.

Yes, tuta encrypts the subject, which is not encrypted in Proton for example.

So, TLS is just a point-to-point encryption protocol, it doesn't prevent anybody of the parties involved from having access to the content. Once the email is encrypted with PGP, Proton loses permanently access to this content.

So this is pretty much what happens with a Gmail <-> Outlook and a Gmail <-> Proton email.

Gmail to outlook:

A writes the email in their editor <- TLS -> Google servers <-TLS-> outlook servers <-TLS-> B reads the email. While every communication is encrypted with TLS, every server has access to its content. Every time B accesses the email from outlook servers (I.e., their inbox), the data is transferred with TLS, but outlook is the "other end of the tunnel", so it has access to this content.

Gmail to Proton:

A writes the email in their editor <- TLS -> Google servers <-TLS-> Proton servers -> encrypt original message with B's public key and discard original -> send to B inbox -> Proton client decrypts email -> B accesses it.

So yes, it is

about making sure your data on the servers stays safe even if someone gains access

As long as you consider the email provider part of those potential "someone".

The way I would say it essentially is that PGP encryption (even in cases where the original messages was not using it) still gives you the confidentiality property of PGP, even without the integrity and non-repudiation properties (which are not possible to guarantee with respect of the original message of course). In other words, the biggest difference is that the email provider doesn't have access to your stuff.