This is either hilariously naive or offensively dishonest by way of semantic manipulation. I didn't recognize your attitude as American because of your citizenship, and changing your citizenship won't suddenly erase those attitudes or alter their origins. You'll still be the person who holds those attitudes and bears…

You'll never stop being an American, though, just like you'll never stop being the child you once were. I'll quote Joseph Conrad for this one, since it feels futile trying to make the point better than he did:

This is the problem with that, though — you (and Kat) are using variety and exceptions as the basis for the idea of religiously Jewish/Christian/Muslim witches and warlocks, and then simultaneously treating the hypothetical Jewish/Christian/Muslim witches and warlocks as if they would be a monolithic entity that would…

Not only was it established there were gay people in existence, since, you know, Dumbledore was not a retconn. To the people who say that, I say go back and read harder, because the subtext is definitely there.

This is a lot of wishful thinking and projection, though. I mean come at me with something other than just you selectively interpreting things to be what you want them to be and mean what you feel they mean.

Again, that's you.

I don't understand what point you're making. Because you imagine it and there is no proof against it, it can be fairly considered canon? Knowing something and entertaining yourself by imagining it aren't really the same thing, especially in the context of the Tweet announcements you're referring to.

If we're just talking opinions on ideal beliefs, I agree with you, but your view is a minority secularist, revisionist take (which only really came about because people stopped believing witchcraft was real). It doesn't represent traditional religious Christianity. So in the Potter universe, witchcraft is real, and…

I understand this. I'm just interested in why the application of this principle feels so unique and so inconsistent with the standards by which other creative works (literary/artistic and commercial both, present-day and historical both) are judged.

Funny, and fair enough.

I don't get why Rowling's books specifically get a pass on the requirement to do actual artistic legwork and include things in the writing, and comments such as these discuss them as if all J.K. Rowling is doing is describing a world that already exists and is populated. She created it, and she populated it — so you…

Uh, so the Tweeter meant pre-Nuclear Age/pre-Space Age 20th century? Which definition of modern are you going with? Or you could just not be pedantic about Swordfry's funny point.

Pretty much all of the mainstream Abrahamic religious explicitly ban witchcraft in the strongest terms, so really the idea that there were any actual religious Jews/Christians/Muslims at Hogwarts is a hilarious failure to understand that belief systems actually matter to people in their lives and environments. It also…

You can say it, but you can also say there were robots in Hamlet's Denmark, they just weren't in the plays. It makes about as much sense.

Great argument.

Dumbledore's sexuality was also a post-publication retcon.

Supposed purists like this also forget that part of the game's original appeal back in 1997 was its groundbreaking graphics.

graphics don't make the slightest bit of difference,

The fact that everyone wants to un-kill Aerith so badly is a big part of the mindset that holds good storytelling in games back. Aerith is dead. She stays dead. Accept it.

Not judging them for that. I remember renting Mega Man 2 from blockbuster when I was like 7 and having the exact same thought process. But why are they faces and names of characters, then? When I first reached a boss, I went "OH!" and it all became clear.