

Saying “I can’t live without Harry Potter”, that’s hyperbole. Or if you’re serious, it’s just funny.
The argument is that funding Harry Potter directly funds JJ Rowling - whom then proudly and openly uses her wealth to pay for campaigns to enact anti-trans legislation and pays suppot to regressive anti-LGBTQ groups. Its a boycott.
People are justified in judging those who know this yet continue to support Rowling’s products monetarily or act in them as LGBT hostile.
From all the online back and forth I’ve seen though, few care if you pirate them therefore denying monetary support <- that’s nuance.
Ah, all good. I didn’t downvote either way, just commented to try to make sense of the discussion. Sarcasm or facetious language is easily lost over text - thanks for clarifying