is that another spell

Daddy Time, please.

come on harry, you're the chosen one

I feel like most of those things are not accurate, or are not good faith criticism. It's worth remembering that until the whole trans thing, the Harry Potter series was seen as very liberal to the point where some conservatives boycotted it.

-Harry isn't a "cop", like hes not walking the beat arresting people, hes a dark wizard catcher. Which is perfectly rational given dark wizards killed his parents and they're pretty explicitly fascists.

-a pretty huge part of the books is devoted to how good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. Barty Crouch Sr is a whole character who is there to show how the good guys can end up being nearly as bad and brutal as the bad guys because they think the ends justify the means and in times of crisis people are willing to compromise their morals.

-Hermione is ridiculed for sticking up for house elves but she's also right, as Harry starts to realize by the end of the books. It's worth noting that the two most steadfast supporters of house elves are Hermione and dumbledore, aka Rowlings "always right about everything" characters

-Seamus is pretty yikesy in the movies but 90% of the stuff isn't in the books. Idk I thought he was a little racist, although still ultimately a good guy. Cho Chang has a stereotypical name but so what? I don't think it's racist in itself. I literally work with a guy named Ying Yang.

-I don't think obesity is used as a failing, gluttony is used as a failing, as in a favorite expression among leftists, the "fat cat". There are plenty of other overweight characters that are good and righteous like Ms Weasly, Slughorn (kinda), and Hagrid.

-I'm not sure who you're referring to with regards to describing teenage females as unattractive but that seems kinda cherry picked. Harry ends up with Ginny who in the books is described as a tomboy. The biggest female villain is arguably Umbridge who is very stereotypically feminine

I'm not defending Rowling as a person at all, or her statements about trans people, but the criticism of Harry potter feels very much like going back and reexamining them with an agenda. You can do the same uncharitable thing with any fantasy series. Hell, off the top of my head I can think of much worse criticisms of lord of the rings or game of thrones but people don't seem to want to nitpick those the same way.

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me, I guess. Money changes people; status and power changes people.

Obesity as a moral failing - want to make a character seem bad? Just make them fat

Although, there were fat good guys, and many non-fat bad guys. There wasn't a particularly late amount of obesity in the books. That point seems a stretch, to me.

Token minority characters that are often stereotypes or border on racism - the black kid is named Shacklebolt, the Asian girl is named two single syllable last names (might as well have called her Ching Chong),

Schacklebolt is pretty bad, but I think we also have to consider Rowling's cultural upbringing. Of she were from the US, it would be blatantly shocking. The UK didn't have systemic domestic slavery based on race; I don't know that it's fair to judge her based on US critical race theory; the UK has it's own version, for sure, but it has different foundations.

As for Cho Chang, it is common for Chinese proper names to have two syllables (2 and 3 character names account for over 99% of the given names - 1 syllable named account for 0.6%). I don't remember her background, but if any of her recent ancestors (parents, grandparents) were immigrants, then it would be less believable and more forced for her to not have a multi-syllable name.

Rowling has enough criticizable behavior; we don't have to exaggerate by turning otherwise non- controversial facts into issues.

the 12 year old irish kid is obsessed with turning drinks into whiskey and blowing stuff up, etc.

That's most 12 y/o boys, but making it the Irish kid is a fair point.

I think nearly all of these ignore counter-examples where, e.g., every other Irish person in the family isn't an IRA stand-in. That also ignore the fact that every true villain is WAS(P), and that the "crazy" character is so white she's practically albino.

The defense of the slavery of house elves using the exact same

It's defense only used by villains. Hermione actively pursues ending the practice, and it's described as being a terrible practice. How does the fact that villains - and only villains, or in one case, inherited - in the books practice slavery condemn Rowling?

criticism of Hermione as a girl with blue hair and pronouns for questioning and trying to change the system.

Are we ignoring that Hermione was one of the four, central hero's of each of the novels? I don't remember any criticism of her except by the establishment.

There are no good or bad actions, only good or bad people. It's okay for the right people to use the torture spell, because they're the "good guys."

Yeah. I agree, there's a lot of questionable justification of behavior in this. I mean, everyone lets slide the exact same justifications in GoT, but, hey.

And a resolution that basically resolves nothing. Harry doesn't kill Voldemort, he kills himself due to a magic technicality, and Harry goes on to become a magic cop to ensure the flawed system that the early books criticized doesn't change.

Agreed. An utterly unsatisfying resolution, which I interpreted as a statement that there are no good and bad people, just good and bad behavior. When the key hero turns out to be not such a hero in the end; when you expect something more noble, but what you get is reality - good doesn't always triumph, people in wars die indiscriminately, and in the end centuries of established practices continue and survive intact despite great upheaval... yup! It's a depressing statement, but I still think it was a statement.

I think Rowling changed as money changed her; she hid bigotry less as she became convinced of the armor of her own popularity; but she also had a kid who grew and changed in time with the novels, and she changed the story to match the loss of innocence and realization that fighting the establishment is hard, expensive, and not guaranteed to succeed. The good guys do not always win; they don't always survive the encounter coming out the same person they started as.

I won't defend Rowling, but I also think some of the criticisms are reaching, merely in an attempt to vilify her as much as possible mainly for her homophobic views. Which, ironically, there were no examples of in her novels, and so nothing to call her out about except by its absence.

I feel like that was more so her self insert, hermoinie, can be "on the right side of history"

This is my little headcannon theory and not a hill I even wanna fight on, so if there are blatant holes I'm interested I'm hearing but also keep in mind this is just something I "believe" because it amuses me.

Pirate anything JKR from here on out, got it

It just means the author's intent is ignored in interpreting the work. Like if you, the reader, decide "the sky is gray" is a reflection of the main character's inner turmoil, that's what it means. Even if the author was just foreshadowing some rain, your interpretation is correct because death of the author means the reader's interpretation is the correct one. It's kind of silly, but it also lets people find new meaning in art and I think that's neat.

People use it as "enjoy the art but fuck the artist" but I don't think that's entirely accurate, unless they're choosing to interpret certain parts of the books as not coming from a problematic place.