Yeah, I was afraid that it might not have been clear.
I relly liked them as a kid, but now I agree with Ursula K Le Guin:
I have no great opinion of it. When so many adult critics were carrying on about the ‘incredible originality’ of the first Harry Potter book, I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kid’s fantasy crossed with a ‘school novel’, good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited.
My nieces and nephews are currently getting into Harry Potter (their parents enable them) and I really hope that the nostalgia-hype is over, once my child is in that age.
It's just that black/african/aboriginal culture can be sold by people who are not part of that community without ever giving anything back to the people who created the culture in the first place (you know, their source of their income - it's exploitation).
Often, they're of the class that actually oppresses all non-white people.
Ah, yes. I don't care about the Iranian people because... Instead of focussing on how much iranian women are allowed not to wear headscarves, I'm rather focussing on how the iranian people suffer under austerity in a plutocratic system which is also under pressure from the imperialist hegemon and it's vasals. And since the article I posted isn't entirely made up of the words "Amerikkka" and "sanctions", but rather goes into detail in how the current protests came about, how the poorer classes suffer under the current system and how international powers try to coopt the movement by trying to astroturf the return of the Schah.
But now, I've seen the errors of my ways! All Iranians are A-OK, because women in Teheran are allowed not to wear scarves in youtube videos! Nothing to see in Iran. Amerikka is the big devil! Long live the Ayatollah!
Now you're just blatantly lying. Read my previous comment, again. They clearly mention and condemn the sanctions. Just because they don't mention them every sentence doesn't mean they ignore them.
You're nothing but an "Amerikkka bad" campist who's not interested in the plight of the Iranian people.
Or how is this "justifying imperialism and a
oppressive sanctions against the Iranian people"?
This horizon faces two parallel threats. On the one hand, it can be appropriated or sidelined by right-wing forces based outside the country—forces that instrumentalize people’s suffering to justify sanctions, war, or military intervention. On the other hand, segments of the ruling class—whether from military-security factions or reformist currents—are working behind the scenes to market themselves to the West as a “more rational,” “lower-cost,” “more reliable” option: an internal alternative from within the Islamic Republic, not to break with the existing order of domination, but to reconfigure it under a different face.
Or this:
In other words, the costs of sanctions are paid directly by the lower classes and the shrinking middle strata.
Or this:
Campist pseudo-leftists reduce the crisis to US sanctions and dollar hegemony, erasing the role of the ruling class of the Islamic Republic as active agents of dispossession and financialized accumulation. Right-wing campists, generally aligned with Western imperialism, blame only the Islamic Republic and treat the sanctions as irrelevant. These positions mirror each another—and each side has clear interests in adopting them. Against both of them, we insist on recognizing the entanglement of global and local plunder and exploitation. Yes, sanctions devastate people’s lives—through medicine shortages, missing industrial parts, unemployment, and psychological erosion—but the burden is socialized onto the people, not onto the military-security oligarchy that amasses enormous wealth by controlling the informal circuits of currency and oil.
Sure. But that system might be a bit too old for some folks. PS4 has relatively recent bangers, still.