Veeky Forums BTFO

>better humans
>according to science

>mfw a friend whom I once respected evinces an interest in journalism near me

>according to science
I think a part of me just died.

Science has always been the best decider of morality though.

So I found the article, surprise, surprise:

>A paper has revealed that kids who read Harry Potter are less prejudiced.

From this magical paper of science, aptly titled, “The Greatest Magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice”:

>Recent research shows that extended contact via story reading is a powerful strategy to improve out-group attitudes. We conducted three studies to test whether extended contact through reading the popular best-selling books of Harry Potter improves attitudes toward stigmatized groups (immigrants, homosexuals, refugees). Results from one experimental intervention with elementary school children and from two cross-sectional studies with high school and university students (in Italy and United Kingdom) supported our main hypothesis. Identification with the main character (i.e., Harry Potter) and disidentification from the negative character (i.e., Voldemort) moderated the effect. Perspective taking emerged as the process allowing attitude improvement. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed in the context of extended intergroup contact and social cognitive theory.

>implying the vast majority of lit isn't incredibly prejudiced

maybe they're onto something

>The Independent

>mfw a now former friend once respected by my former self had assembled a vague opinion of agreeable attitude toward the subject of journalism which I aptly detected and quite vanquished it from my immediate proximity

I was a huge Harry Potter fan as a kid, and I believe in the wall

why is this sad pool of flesh posted so often here

>according to science

>faggot opens a physics text book
>picks out letters thay spell "harry potter is luv" across 200 pages
>holy shit guys I made a discovery

>the expression that lights my face on the occasion that a currently estranged passing acquaintance once expressed a distantly tolerant relation to contemporary printed media and its online equivalent in spite of the overbearing presence of all forms of daftness in it.

>believing in a policy so retarded that Trump's defenders originally tried to pretend it was just a metaphor

Harold weighs 100 pounds, the rest of his body mass is weightless feelings of despair and angst.

youtu.be/fIOvzPDDtJM

Well, like it or not, its gonna happend.

I suppose, if by "better" you mean "duller", then you could classify as "better" the fans of one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>science
>value judgements

>scientists in charge of morality

>jews have the highest average iq
>their homeland is an ethnostate

interesting...

It won't be in a hundred years. Ethnostates are a failed experiment

t. an abeed

THERE'S NO STOPPING HIM

Evidence for these claims? Oh, you don't have any because you're from /pol/.

...

>tfw too intelligent to not build wall

You sound like you're in a bubble.

I literally only opened this thread to find this. I'm disappointed it took this many posts to show up. I'm leaving now

The fact they call this "science" is pathetic

>according to (((science)))

Avada kedavra the muggles, wizard war now!

It could have tested the entirety of the world's population and proved HP readers commit on average 14% of the crime the rest commit and you'd still be sticking your greasy piglet fingers in your ears calling it out for being SJW or some other deluded insane shit that you obsess about.

A few of those shit tier books are fine for entrants to literature as long as they don't pursue more books in the same category.
Kids are absolutely allowed to read Carroll, Twain and TLOTR and should even be encouraged to do so as they aren't actually 'bad' in the same sense as Stephen King or Rowling.

You're a fag

How do you measure that?

To be fair the entire concept of journalism has become neutered and the writers that now constitute most of these places are nothing more than another branch of PR. That's why retarded manchild stuff like gamergate made me laugh because there was never any integrity in advertising a product. In that example video games. That's all they did, and that's all they'll ever do.

It's funny because the wizards literally had a wall to stop non-wizards from entering their world.

>border wall act 2006
>Obama in 2011: "border fence almost complete"
>Trump's policy
Really causes your neurons to flare up

> according to (((science)))
Whew, mate.