this post was submitted on
1,204 points (53% like it)
8,550 up votes 7,346 down votes
shortlink:

funny

subscribe2,680,362 readers

6,046 users here now

Results of the facebook poll

Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress. Try /r/politicalhumor instead.

  • Rage comics - Go to /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).

Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.

If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1203
1204

They *actually* exist! (fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net)

submitted ago by cha0ticneutral

top 200 commentsshow all 249
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]afoxyguy 41 points42 points ago

Gandalf is gay, too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_McKellen

[–]gospelwut 19 points20 points ago

Sir Ian, I need you to pretend to be a wizard for the duration of the movie.

Sir Ian, Sir Ian, Wizard, Sir Ian.

(If you haven't seen Extras, it's fantastic.)

[–]crazyeight 19 points20 points ago

Sir Ian, Sir Ian, action, WIZARD, YOU SHALL NOT PASS!, cut, Sir Ian, Sir Ian

[–]Neverborn 2 points3 points ago

But it's too late. I've already seen everything.

[–]OhSoSavvy 44 points45 points ago

Thats Magneto, idiot!

[–]ByJiminy 7 points8 points ago

No, that's Richard III, you moldwarp!

[–]Deracination 7 points8 points ago

You're all terrible, that's Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

[–]I_MAKE_USERNAMES -1 points0 points ago

USS Enterprise?

[–]meekleberry 6 points7 points ago

Don't call him an idiot, idiot. It's a pretty common mistake, so cut him some slack.

[–]red_280 2 points3 points ago

Gandalf the Ghey.

[–]ethzilla 13 points14 points ago

Video.

[–]bikegirl80 1 point2 points ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNH_I0WuN-A

[–]Grandmaofhurt 111 points112 points ago

Reposts exist too...

[–]Censor88 86 points87 points ago

Complete with punchline in the title.

[–]Sorkijan 13 points14 points ago

The punch line may have been in the title but without context it doesn't really ruin the joke.

[–]smestad1 3 points4 points ago

Then again, the joke ruins itself.. It's like if Gandalf turned out to be gay, and you say; "wait, you could not believe he was gay, but you could believe in wizards, hobbits, elves, and orchs? lol"

We are told from the beginning what they are, thus, obviously it is not shocking. Everytime I see this horrible joke posted, it makes me cringe.

Edit: Bad example with Gandalf, perhaps. What i'm trying to say is that if sensitive information is revealed about one of the main characters (one you've 'bonded' with), it'll be shocking, because you may not have had a clue. When you are told sensitive information in the beginning, it's just part of the character's description.

TL;DR: You accept the fantasy aspect and premises of the movie from the beginning, but Dumbledore being gay is new information, and may be surprising to many.

[–]ChronicMasterBaker 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, I didn't like it for the same reason. Joe Rogan does a similar bit about Dr. Doolittle (when someone got sued, his wife represented him, which wouldn't happen in real life). And his girlfriend apparently said that wouldn't happen in real life and his complaint was that the animals had been talking the whole time which is even less likely.

That is the premise we've been given to accept to begin with the story; that animals can talk or that wizards exist.

But seeing as your logical analysis got mostly downvotes, bring it

[–]aliterati 1 point2 points ago

Why did you just say "it's like if..." but then not change the joke at all really. You changed Dumbledore (A wizard who is gay) to Gandalf (A wizard you're hypothetically making gay). Why? What did that prove?

You're cringing at the joke, but your comment is infinitely more idiotic.

[–]Sorkijan -4 points-3 points ago

You're gay.

[–]cha0ticneutral[S] 1 point2 points ago

my bad XD this is my 3rd Reddit post and I'm still working on the art of assigning titles

[–]iSWINE 10 points11 points ago

Reposts exist too...

load more comments (5 replies)

    [–]TheoHux 9 points10 points ago

    Man, it's really gotta suck when comedians' jokes get posted on Reddit. They pretty much can't ever tell them again once a wide group of people knows bout them.

    [–]Rape_Stink 4 points5 points ago

    It's a double edged sword because even though they may not be able to reuse the joke, it does mean that their material is popular. The only part of posting comic's material on reddit that sucks is that the OP's rarely give the comic whose joke it is any credit. It's Ted Alexandro BTW

    [–]tnw14 19 points20 points ago

    I hate this post not becuase its unfunny. But because it really confirms harry potter is not real.

    [–]whatkindofasshole 2 points3 points ago

    I tried to make some sort of connection to the existence of fairies but drew a blank. Fuck it.

    [–]coppermark 3 points4 points ago

    But... my invitation to Hogwarts just got caught in the mail... I'm sure it's coming!

    [–]Robial 4 points5 points ago

    I wonder if people would be just as upset to know that McGonagall is a widow. I doubt that would bother you so much.

    [–]Beemorriscats 1 point2 points ago

    I'm actually way more upset by this. Who cares if Dumbledore likes men, McGonagall is a widow!? That's way more traumatic!

    Just read her page on Harry Potter wiki. Her first love was a muggle whom she felt she had to leave because she could not exist hiding her magic from him her whole life. Then she got remarried to the former boss from the ministry of magic, who died 3 years after his (second) proposal! Poor McGonagall =(

    [–]Robial 0 points1 point ago

    I already know, I read it all on Pottermore.

    [–]fluxquanta 5 points6 points ago

    upvoted for ted alexandro but downvoted for posting images of a comedian telling jokes

    [–]Keyserchief 2 points3 points ago

    I don't really understand why people were so upset about all this. I've heard all the stuff about it not being in the books, or her milking it for attention, but it isn't such a big deal. Since it wasn't in the books, doesn't that mean it's up to the reader to decide? If you have such a huge problem with Dumbledore being gay, then don't picture a gay Dumbledore when you're reading the book. It isn't as if Rowling is the god of the universe she created - reading is your own experience, and you have the agency to picture the world of a book as you like. The notion of a discrete "canon" disempowers the reader in experiencing art, and I don't like that one bit.

    Also, I feel like it's a problem when people freak out when someone's sexual orientation is different from what they assumed it was. It isn't such a world-shattering event that someone doesn't find the naughty parts attractive that you thought they would. Maybe it's a problem that we (the readership of Harry Potter, at least) did this for a fictional character?

    [–]starlinguk 0 points1 point ago

    It was in the book. When Jo "outed" him, many people went "you don't say?" Just because he didn't snog another guy doesn't mean it wasn't blatantly obvious.

    [–]Keyserchief 0 points1 point ago

    I know, the thing with Grindelwald was pretty heavily implied. And I appreciate your use of the word "snog."

    [–]bombproof 9 points10 points ago

    Actually they were shocked that an author had the nerve to make a major character gay in a commercially successful book.

    [–][deleted] ago

    [deleted]

    [–]Veshy 13 points14 points ago

    It is a fairly irrelevant point to the story in the final book. There are more pressing themes and ideas floating through Harry's story with Dumbledore's sexuality being the least of importance. She only mentioned it because she got a question about it and answered honestly.

    [–][deleted] ago

    [deleted]

    [–]Veshy 5 points6 points ago

    A) I dont think that J.K. Rowling's aim was to sell as many books as possible. She was interested in writing the best story possible and strongly implying (or even explicitly saying) that Dumbledore is gay is not only irrelevant to the story, it would probably detract from some of the other important themes as people would pay more attention to that.

    B) She didn't announce it, it was during a Q&A session at Carnegie Hall and she simply answered the questions as fully and honestly as she could. She didn't come into the session with a hidden agenda or plan to publicize Dumbledore's sexual preference for sales reasons; she just answered the questions by sharing her thought process, which I find admirable.

    [–]Robial 0 points1 point ago

    this bombshell breaks loose?

    How is this a bombshell? Out of all of the extra information she released about characters after everything why does it matter so much that Dumbledore is gay?

    load more comments (1 reply)

      [–]LORDJEW_VAN_CUNTFUCK 1 point2 points ago

      Because mentioning he was gay in the actual books themselves would have been completely ham-fisted and irrelevant. There would be even more backlash if she had done that.

      None of the characters were explicitly stated as heterosexual and yet it's commonly excepted that they are. Either through inferences of their actions (relationships/crushes) or just by default.

      [–]throwbacklyrics 3 points4 points ago

      Dat resolution.

      [–]YoureMyBoyBloo 1 point2 points ago

      How dare he insinuate that wizards are not real. Wizarding rights is a major hot button issue in today's society. Sure gays are nice and all, but I think we need to get serious about respecting the rights of wizards as I don't think the gays will be enslaving all of humanity any time soon.

      [–]Mitz510 1 point2 points ago

      They do exist, most of them live in closets through their early years.

      [–]dcroni 1 point2 points ago

      the cup in picture two does NOT exist.

      [–]runsoutofspace 0 points1 point ago

      He just likes miming stuff.

      [–]lowbread 1 point2 points ago

      This joke is lacking in funny.

      [–]flekkzo 1 point2 points ago

      The people hating gays do seem to believe in a mythological bearded wizard.

      [–]MrNameless 28 points29 points ago

      I really don't give two fucks that he's gay. But the way I (and many others saw it) was that once a books lore is done, you don't need to keep adding to it.

      The way this was born, she was at a party and someone mentioned Dumbledore. She offhandedly said "I always thought him gay myself." and was promptly rewarded with applause. She then proceeded to milk it and claim it was canon. This is a big no no to me. If you want something to be canon, then make it canon. Otherwise leave it be.

      *Fixed the typo.

      [–]dumbmother 131 points132 points ago

      She wasn't at a party. She was in Carnegie Hall for a book reading and signing. It also wasn't an offhanded comment. There was a Q&A session in which one audience member asked her if Dumbledore ever fell in love. That's when she responded with the explanation that she always saw Dumbledore as gay. She explained further by saying that his childhood crush was Gindelwald and that Grindelwald's eventual decline into darkness may explain why Dumbledore never found love again.

      J.K. Rowling is known to have boxes and boxes of notes on the Harry Potter universe that she wrote meticulously before and while completing the series. Just because she did not include it in her book does not mean she did not consider Dumbledore's sexuality or love interests, especially seeing as love is such a strong motif in the series. I'm sure that there is plenty of other book lore she was never able to include in the books. I see it as being equivalent to deleted scenes in movies.

      I don't mean to sound like I'm ranting. I was present for announcement and I thought it was interesting and informative news. In my opinion, Rowling was extremely genuine and wasn't saying things just to "milk it."

      [–][deleted] 20 points21 points ago

      I agree with you completely and it actually makes the chapters discussing Dumbledore and Grindlewald much more interesting and makes it an even sadder story for Dumbledore really.

      [–]Zhang5 9 points10 points ago

      Maybe it's just because I'm gay as springtime, but I picked up on a subtle implication there might have been something of a passion between Dumbledore and Grindelwald when their past was described in the books, and that was before the announcement Dumbledore is gay. Hell, there seems to be less supporting evidence (to my memory) that he's straight. Though one might be able to argue for purely asexual.

      [–]Get_This -2 points-1 points ago

      Then it begs the question, why not declare this in the books itself? Why wait much after the releases to do so? I agree that not every tidbit needs to be included, but this clearly is a very important piece of information to be packed away in her notes only.

      [–]raserei0408 15 points16 points ago

      What makes it so important. Dumbledore's sexuality is entirely unconnected to any of the plot or themes in the books, so why throw it in?

      [–]Get_This -5 points-4 points ago

      Exactly. Why throw it in at all? Doesn't matter if in the books or otherwise, why mention it at all.

      [–]dumbmother 15 points16 points ago

      Someone asked her if Dumbledore ever found love. Rowling responded with what she knew to be the truth about the character she created. What else was she supposed to say?

      load more comments (1 reply)

        [–]itaintme 5 points6 points ago

        http://begthequestion.info/

        [–]Get_This 0 points1 point ago

        Now I feel stupid. Thank you for this.

        [–]itaintme 1 point2 points ago

        It's not stupid to not know something. That's ignorance, and it's fixable... unless you are stupid (unable to properly take in and process information).

        [–]kablamy 2 points3 points ago

        For two reasons I would assume, in no particular order:

        It would affect book sales.

        and

        I think Dumbledore was always supposed to be something of a mystery. She never really went into the more intimate details of his life and most things that we know about him were learned second-hand.

        [–]Get_This 3 points4 points ago

        Purposeful obfuscation of one of the lead characters orientation in an attempt to insulate its effect on the book sales sounds like an incredibly cowardly thing to do. Even more so if she reveals it later on, like she did.

        [–]kablamy 1 point2 points ago

        Does it matter?

        I was just speculating and both or neither of those reasons could be true.

        [–]Get_This -1 points0 points ago

        Does what matter?

        Does it matter to the average reader that JKR chickened out like this? Nope.

        Does it matter that Dumbledore was gay? Nope.

        Does any of the above discussion matter at all, in fact? No.

        And yet, here we are.

        Rhetorically asking whether 'it matters' or not effectively kills all sane discussion possible.

        [–]kablamy 0 points1 point ago

        Yeah I was kind of hoping it would end this discussion.

        Sorry but I don't care enough the Harry Potter universe and J.K. Rowling's story telling decisions to talk about them in detail.

        [–]schwingschwang -1 points0 points ago

        So why not keep it a mystery? Why ruin that? I don't understand why authors would go through the trouble of setting up that air of mystery about a MAJOR character and then just spill all the beans and ruin all that effort.

        It's like making your bed and then messing it up in the middle of the day.

        [–]ladybetty 2 points3 points ago

        When the last book (or movie, if you roll like that) came out and the HP era ended, I like many other fans wanted to know as much about the rest of the lore as possible. Once the series is over and all the plots are finished it becomes fun to find out as much as you can, because there are no spoilers afterwards.

        I personally think JKR was right in not putting it in the books. I can't think of anywhere it would have fitted in for it to be said outright, but it was hinted at enough for more mature readers to see (ie. not kids), which essentially is a good thing, because if she had put it in there would have been outrage from a shite-load of parents who don't wants their kids reading a sexualised book.

        [–]schwingschwang -1 points0 points ago

        maybe it would have started a dialog about why people think it's ok to put sexualized content from straight couples but if you put one scene in that is about non straight people it's all of the sudden a sexualised book?

        Isn't the main point in the books the idea that love conquers all? You know...except if the profits won't be as good.

        You really don't see how someone could fit in such an amazing story line that actually is relevant to the character in seven books? Not a single place in all seven of them where it would be a reveal that could have made the character or even the story more meaningful? Hilarious.

        [–]kablamy 1 point2 points ago

        I have no idea.

        Maybe she doesn't really care anymore?

        She is moving on to other projects now so maybe she doesn't see the harm in fleshing out the rest of the universe?

        It could also be that she knows most people will never hear about it and those whose are still fans deserve answers?

        [–]whimsies 1 point2 points ago

        Telling one somewhat surprising fact that kind of makes sense in a way (unless you look at it as if it's offensive and get all riled up) is hardly "spilling all the beans." Jesus. If this were any other interesting thing about Dumbledore, I guarantee NONE of you, not even the people who supposedly have no problem with homosexuality, would have cared. Perhaps it's always something she wanted to put in (instead of just have in her notes) but she foresaw the backlash it would receive (there was already plenty from hardcore Christians about the wizard part) so she waited. I think telling that Dumbledore was gay was great -- used the massive popularity of the books among children to do some good. If Dumbledore is gay, then maybe an impression will be made on some young kids who otherwise had bigoted parents that perhaps not all gay people are evil. Plus it's her fucking story.

        [–]schwingschwang 1 point2 points ago

        Perhaps it's always something she wanted to put in (instead of just have in her notes) but she foresaw the backlash it would receive (there was already plenty from hardcore Christians about the wizard part) so she waited.

        THAT is my whole problem with it. That is why I hate that she did this. Her entire series revolved around the idea that love conquers all. But she doesn't include that story line because she is more afraid of losing money then she does about what her whole series was based around.

        The fact that she modified a story that she wanted to tell for profit is what bothers me. There is no other reason I can conceive of that she wouldn't put that in there and announce it at a q&a afterward. Do you understand?

        Why should she care about what a bunch of bigots think? Because she wants their money. Can you see why people don't quite respect this now?

        [–]schwingschwang 0 points1 point ago

        The only message she sends to people is that selling out is more important to her then the actual message in her books, and that people will defend her for it if she comes out after it's not a risk anymore and says what the character would have been in the books had she been trying to tell her story instead of trying to sell her story.

        [–]Swingingbells 0 points1 point ago

        I care about this and I would have cared about it regardless of what the reveal was.
        It could have been a reveal of Dumbledore's favourite muggle football team, his estranged ex-wife, that he prefers puppies instead of kittens, whatever.

        It's just not kosher to add random shit outside of the framework of the universe's canon. Just because it was his sexuality that was revealed, doesn't mean it isn't doing that, or that it's ok.

        Steven Moffat has done the exact same thing with River Song, a character in the Doctor Who universe. A non-canon reveal of a non-heteronormative sexuality, in an attempt to pander to lgbt people or to piss off religious people or whatever. It's retarded and it doesn't count.

        [–]sassycat69 -1 points0 points ago

        IT WAS IN THE BOOKS.. he was in love with grindwald, so its really not a "random fact."

        [–]starlinguk 0 points1 point ago

        It wasn't a mystery. It was pretty darn obvious that he was in love with Grindelwald.

        [–]om_nom_nom 0 points1 point ago

        I don't think it's all that important, it seems more like a fun fact to me, much like all of the random information about everyone else past that she has.

        [–]Robial 8 points9 points ago

        You must hate Pottermore.

        [–]stopstigma 26 points27 points ago

        The thing with dumbledore is, he does not have a "sexual" storyline. I never really thought of him as heterosexual, I just thought of him as asexual. Because being gay isn't a big deal, when she said that offhandedly it didn't really change the way you looked at the character. It's not like he had a wife. She also adds things , even her potter more site gave more details about things.

        [–]TheLoveTin 1 point2 points ago

        Interesting point.

        FYI ( disregard if you got auto-spelled) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(disambiguation)

        [–]poresand 2 points3 points ago

        I thought it was a ploy, a way to be snarky with the press. But then I saw this conversation between Daniel Radcliffe and JK Rowling and . . . he's actually gay, and it actually adds something to the series for me.

        [–]monkeymarine 0 points1 point ago

        That interview is incredible. Anyone who has an hour to kill, check it out.

        [–]schwingschwang 0 points1 point ago

        It depressed me and made the story worse. I want to hear Rowling answer why she didn't put it in the book when she had so many straight relationships. It doesn't add to the meaning of the book, it just reminds people of the fact that the only reason she didn't put in such an interesting story line is because it would have affected sales.

        [–]best_policy 3 points4 points ago

        Nothing wrong with any of that. He wasn't a sexual character so his sexuality wasn't mentioned in the books. JK Rowling however (the actual creator of the character), always thought he was gay. It wasn't her that "milked it" btw... it was the media blowing a story out of proportion as usual. When people asked her after the initial revelation, what was she supposed to say? "No he's not gay"? No... she's obviously going to say he is gay like she thought all along.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

        I care. I don't know about you, but when I read fiction, I like to pretend that the characters are real. Like they have motivations or histories and daydreams. It matters to me a lot, imagining that Dumbledore went to wizard school himself with his mind on boys instead of girls. It kind of matters a great deal, because if Dumbledore was straight, then his life would have gone down a different timeline and someone else would have discovered Tom Riddle (or he wouldn't have been discovered at all, or possible he would have been killed by muggles). Dumbledore is a central figure and his motivations are incredibly important. Just as how the Star Wars prequels were about the rise of Senator Palpatine, so too would the Harry Potter prequels be about the motivations and decisions of Dumbledore. Rowling knew Dumbledore's history when she wrote the books (or she claims to have anyway), though I don't think she's clever enough to have really written the characters by motivations when she wrote book 1.

        But anyway, he's gay, so for those of us that can "see" the characters as we are reading it, it's kinda important. Plus, her characters are so two dimensional, so any indication of any depth to the characters is worth paying attention to.

        [–]Kowai03 1 point2 points ago

        This. I never once felt that, during my reading of the series, Dumbledore was gay. It is never alluded to in his behaviour, his actions, what other people think of him etc.

        It felt INCREDIBLY tacked on that Rowling would just say he was gay.

        [–]LORDJEW_VAN_CUNTFUCK 0 points1 point ago

        Yeah, see, usually I'd agree that the Word of God isn't exactly canon but if you really think about it, you never have to state that characters are heterosexual in a book and yet that's considered canon. If one of them was gay, and it was never explicitly brought up in the book, that doesn't mean it's not true. Otherwise wouldn't all the characters that don't show romantic interest be labelled as "asexual" canonically?

        In my opinion, JK handled a gay main character the best way you could. By not making it an issue or a plot point. It was just something that was. Just like heterosexuality is in any book. It's just there, it doesn't need to be pointed out.

        [–]Reshe -1 points0 points ago

        General rule of thumb is that priority for canon in fictional universes rely primarily on release date. The newer information trumps the old where conflicting facts are found. In this case, even though it was unpublished, and because the owner of the story made the claim, it is assumed to be true. But I agree, once books are done then it needs to be done. All of this adding and subtracting ex post facto nonsense needs to stop.

        [–]Paradoxius 2 points3 points ago

        It's not like she went in and edited the books. someone asked her about Dumbledore's sexuality and she answered honestly. Are you saying she should have lied and said he was straight? That would make no sense.

        Maybe you think she shouldn't have answered, said it wasn't important, but that would be a dickish thing to do.

        [–]Mtrask 0 points1 point ago

        Thing is, it was never mentioned what D's sexuality was. She could have said he was straight and that would not have contradicted any of the existing material.

        [–]Paradoxius 0 points1 point ago

        But that would be lying just to avoid controversy...

        [–]schwingschwang -1 points0 points ago

        Why would that be dickish? It wasn't important enough to put in the books, so why would she be a dick for choosing to make dumbledore remain a bit of a mystery to people?

        Also, no one asked her about his sexuality. They asked her if he ever found love. She could have said "no." She could have let it remain a mystery and just asked if they thought he had found love.

        [–]sTiKyt 0 points1 point ago

        It's called "clarifying", it's neither adding nor subtracting and it's perfectly acceptable for the creator of any media to participate in. Besides, who are you to claim ultimate authority over what authors can do with their IP once they've finished a series. I doubt you'd be making such a fuss and citing so many unwritten rules if it was a detail other than a certain characters sexuality.

        [–]Mo0man -1 points0 points ago

        Dude, if you didn't think that there was a thing between him and Grindlewald, you're a bit obtuse

        [–]Snowyjoe 2 points3 points ago

        is a gay?

        What? Gay is an object now?

        [–]xLowDown 0 points1 point ago

        I hate that saying.

        [–]logancook44 1 point2 points ago

        The outrage wasn't the fact that he was gay, the outrage came from the fact that there was no reason to believe throughout the entire series that he was gay, nor at any time was his sexuality brought into question, therefore it should have been irrelevant. Stuff life that should be left to the reader to decide, not told by the author. If it isn't an important characteristic that appeared in the series, then let me fill in the rest by myself.

        Sorry, avid HP fan here. Had to vent about it.

        [–]stickyleaf 1 point2 points ago

        Dumbledore was totally gay for Frodo Baggins.

        [–]Rape_Stink 1 point2 points ago

        If you're going to steal a comic's jokes at least give them credit. This guy's name is Ted Alexandro and he's a fantastic NYC comic.

        [–]Pepbep 1 point2 points ago

        Upvoted because not in /r/atheism

        [–]IndigoHurls 1 point2 points ago

        What always bothered me was not the fact that he was gay but it seemed forced, like an off hand remark by Rowling like "Oh by the way he's gay." Granted it's been a while since I cracked one of those books open but I don't recall ever seeing anywhere in the books that led me to believe that.

        [–]Robial 1 point2 points ago

        It wasn't off hand, she was answering a question.

        [–]IndigoHurls 1 point2 points ago

        Is there anywhere in the books that makes some sort of reference? Or just someone made a lucky guess?

        [–]Robial 2 points3 points ago

        When JK Rowling was at Carneige Hall someone asked her "Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?" She answered the question and in it stated that he was gay and had fallen in love with Grindelwald.

        [–]underground4550 3 points4 points ago

        I don't understand, i just searched up both actors who played Dumbledore, and each of them have had a wife. I don't get the joke. Richard Harris and Michael Gambon aren't gay.

        Edit: Why am i being down-voted for a misunderstanding. "Oh This guy doesn't know something i do, he's a bad person!"

        [–]CariniGambarini 3 points4 points ago

        I hear "Gambon" and I just think Top Gear.

        [–]symbiotics 1 point2 points ago

        The character, not the actor, is gay

        [–]Shampyon 0 points1 point ago

        There is no joke to get.

        JK Rowling had stated that she intended Dumbledore to be gay, specifically citing his relationship with Grellert Grindelwald.

        She didn't make it explicit in the books, nor did she claim to have. She simply stated that it was how she imagined her creation. The press picked up on it and, as they tend to do, turned it into a much bigger deal than it was. They sought out statements from conservative parental associations and religious spokes-groups to manufacture the appearance of controversy.

        [–]Gengar11 0 points1 point ago

        link?

        [–]Caramel_Chew_Chew 0 points1 point ago

        He looks like Pep Guardiola decided to try standup on his sabbatical.

        [–]FlatlanderMachine 0 points1 point ago

        Repost. For the fucking umpteenth time.

        [–]TheRealBacon 0 points1 point ago

        I think that guy was in my calc class last semester..

        [–]rikashiku 0 points1 point ago

        This is way old.

        [–]lshevtsov 0 points1 point ago

        Immaterial. You could also say he's a woman, or a dog, or a rock, because these also exist.

        [–]flibblesan 0 points1 point ago

        Reposts exist. Who knew.

        [–]AtomicDeaths 0 points1 point ago

        How do you think I feel when I go go r/new for one minute, and upvote this for the first time, an then find this in the morning? Well it feels like I'm a successful parent.

        [–]amarkoski 0 points1 point ago

        The second frame is odd. Is talking while sucking an invisible dick?

        [–]STOP_BEING_RETARDED 0 points1 point ago

        OP would know..

        [–]BallsackTBaghard 0 points1 point ago

        Why do people assume that Dumbledore is gay? I read the books and saw the movies. I didn't see any gayness,except for the silly clothes, but everyone wore silly clothes there.

        [–]markman71122 0 points1 point ago

        well, in the movies he's a wizard. We can understand that part, But in real life many people have other opinions towards gays.

        [–]LAKETITTYCACADOODOO 0 points1 point ago

        Classic standup comedy fail. No one actually believes he's a wizard. Premise destroyed.

        [–]CheesewithWhine 0 points1 point ago

        The fact that he is gay was irrevelant to the storyline, so Rowling shouldn't have added it after the books ended. Just like all the buzz about Dean Thomas's parents: it wasn't relevant, so she didn't put anything in.

        [–]megly 0 points1 point ago

        What about Dean's parents?

        [–]symbiotics 0 points1 point ago

        Did someone said Dean?

        [–]Mr0range 0 points1 point ago

        This doesn't even make sense. In the context narrative he is a is wizard and there is no "believing." The world of Harry Potter makes it quite clear that Dumbledore is a wizard. This is a fucking stupid joke.

        [–]entbeard 0 points1 point ago

        Wizard was just a metaphor for smart/culturally aware people - a play on de Certeau's concept of the "wandersmänner" - those in our society "whose bodies follow the thicks and thins of an urban 'text' they write without being able to read it" - the social regulators who don't know what motivates them.

        [–]sufrt 5 points6 points ago

        alright at least one of us has no idea what you're talking about or why you're invoking de Certeau

        [–]DoctorPimpslap -1 points0 points ago

        For your grand repost I allot you 1 downvote.

        [–]CitizenPremier -1 points0 points ago

        I really disagree with what Rowling did. She didn't make Dumbledore gay in her writing (as far as I know). She just declared him gay ex post facto. That doesn't make him gay. She needs to give us some quotes to prove it.

        [–]fizzl -1 points0 points ago

        Accually Dolan

        load more comments (4 replies)

          Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

          REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

          π Rendered by PID 29593 on app-04 running 320e81d.