Blaming Snape For Creating Sectumsempra Is Like Blaming A Woman For Carrying Pepper Spray In Her Bag

Aunque esta película me guste, me traen malos recuerdos de un compañero que tuve que estaba obsesionado con la memoria y ponía siempre esta película de ejemplo. Que salí de ahí conociendo una muy buena película de animación, pero también salí de ahí con traumas :’)

Esta línea lo ejemplifica muy bien. Enseñanza de esto, no hagáis trabajos con gente que aunque en un principio parezca que tengan una forma de pensar interesante nada garantiza que salgas de ahí bien parado. Pd: también por él conocí la película persona, que es una muy muy buena película, así que tampoco fue tan malo conocerlo.

“Peter Pettigrew awoke one morning from uneasy dreams to find himself transformed in his bed into a little rat.”

Sirius and Peter make me believe in karma. The dog and the rat suit them so well. I still don’t understand the connection between James and a stag, but Peter as a rat? Absolutely and the dog fits Sirius perfectly too.

I may not be Hindu, but sometimes it’s hard not to believe that a fly could be the reincarnation of an annoying person who wasted their life nervously wandering around. After flying so many times, maybe its few neurons align with the life of a fly. And doesn’t that remind you of Peter?

I don’t hate him , I actually find him an interesting character , but honestly, the way his Animagus form reflects his personality deserves an essay.

Sirius and Peter make me believe in karma. The dog and the rat suit them so well. I still don’t understand the connection between James and a stag, but Peter as a rat? Absolutely and the dog fits Sirius perfectly too.

I may not be Hindu, but sometimes it’s hard not to believe that a fly could be the reincarnation of an annoying person who wasted their life nervously wandering around. After flying so many times, maybe its few neurons align with the life of a fly. And doesn’t that remind you of Peter?

I don’t hate him , I actually find him an interesting character , but honestly, the way his Animagus form reflects his personality deserves an essay.

What do you think father voldemort said to him? and was there a conversation? voldemort even talked to harry about his father.

It's pretty messed up to think that Rowling used such sensitive issues as sexual abuse (in Merope's case towards Tom), orphanhood, or domestic violence (in Snape's case) to define the personalities of characters who are either outright villains or morally questionable. In a way, it feels like she's blaming children and teenagers for not being able to move past their trauma, even though these kids had no psychological support, no healthy role models, no real help of any kind. She's essentially saying that if your family is a mess and you turn out wrong, it's your fault. And the worst part is that a big part of the fandom supports this idea.

It’s a very neoliberal perspective, based entirely on individualism and survival of the fittest. There’s no sense of the importance of community, care, or collective support. I think this is also very Anglo-culture: the idea that, well, some people go through hell and don’t become bad, so if you do, it’s on you. That view is incredibly individualistic, deeply capitalist, rooted in the "self-made millionaire" myth and the "if you're poor, it's because you want to be" mentality.

In other cultures, this way of thinking would be unthinkable—or at least not so normalized—because it's understood that the only path to survival is collective survival. There are relational dynamics with deep collective roots. You see it in Mediterranean culture, in Latin American culture, cultures where it's understood that only the people can save the people, and no one can save themselves alone.

Rowling doesn’t get this. That’s why she builds narratives around the lone hero who must face the villain by himself, the chosen one, all those tropes that end up individualizing the protagonist instead of fostering collective effort. And I also believe that this same mentality is why many of her haters don’t realize they fall into the same patterns of thought as she does, when they blame society’s victims for their own fates, instead of understanding that all of it could have been prevented with a good support system to catch them when they fell.

what is "FD"?

FD is “Forever Dawn."  It was the original sequel to Twilight (Before New Moon and Eclipse were written) and was what Breaking Dawn is based on.   From Stephenie Meyer’s website:

The basic story is the same. Bella and Edward get married and go to Isle Esme for their honeymoon. Bella gets pregnant with Renesmee. The birth just about kills Bella, but Edward makes her a vampire in time. Jacob imprints on Renesmee. Alice has a vision of the Volturi coming to destroy the Cullens with the "immortal child” as their excuse. Alice bails. Bella’s shielding abilities turn the tide in the Cullen’s favor, along with Alice bringing home another half-vampire to prove that Nessie isn’t a danger.

The things that are different:

Jacob and Bella are not nearly so close. None of the events of New Moon or Eclipse exist; Edward never leaves, so Bella and Jacob never bond. Jacob’s feelings for Bella remain at crush level.

Due in part to Jacob being a smaller character, the werewolf pack is only sketchily developed. It exists as a whole, but there isn’t much information about the individuals. Most of the wolves do not have names.

The entire story is written in Bella’s perspective. Because of this, there is a lot more emphasis on the pregnancy phase.

Jacob isn’t there at the delivery, naturally, so he imprints on Renesmee a few weeks later when Bella is visiting Charlie.

With no New Moon or Eclipse, Victoria and Laurent are both still alive. Laurent stays happily with Irina and sides with the Cullens in the confrontation with the Volturi. It is Victoria rather than Irina who informs on the Cullens to the Volturi. She creates a new friend, Riley, to make the actual accusation. She doesn’t want Aro to know about her agenda—or the fact that the baby is only half-vampire, of which she is aware.

The wolves kill Victoria. She is the only casualty at the final confrontation.

The last chapter ends the same way, but there is an epilogue. It involves Max (J. Jenk’s assistant). Bella’s initial interaction with him is a little bit longer and, feeling she owes him a favor, she gives him her number and tells him she will help him out in return if he ever needs a favor of his own. Max gets himself into some trouble, and Bella gets to play Superman.

The Marauders didn't stop bullying Snape after the prank. It actually got worse.

A lot of people are surprised to realize that the scene in Snape's Worst Memory happens after the werewolf prank. When first reading OOTP, people generally assumed that SWM showed escalating tension between the Marauders and Snape that up led to the prank. But in DH, we see Snape and Lily talking about the prank before SWM. This means that the Marauders are still singling Snape out and targeting him after prank. Why?

My theory is that the bullying actually got worse after the prank. Because the only way to hold their friend group together was for the Marauders to double down and rally around blaming Snape for what happened.

Think about it: How did that incident not tear them apart? Sirius not only exposed Lupin's secret – he also attempted to use Lupin as a weapon against Snape, and he could have gotten James killed in the process. That's a huge betrayal.

But Sirius isn't mature enough to take responsibility for it. Lupin isn't self-confident enough to confront Sirius about it. "James would-consider-it-the-height-of-dishonor-to-mistrust-his-friends Potter" isn't going to be the one to lay blame on Sirius or break up the group. But it's too big an issue to ignore. The only way they can get over this is to put it all on Snape. It was just a joke, and Snape is an idiot, and James is a hero.

If you compare the two incidents that the books show us of the Marauders bullying Snape, you can see that totally different dynamics are driving the bullying. This shows how and why the bullying got worse after the prank.

The first bullying incident we see is on the Hogwarts Express, when James and Sirius engage in verbal bullying of Snape, with one small attempt at tripping him up as he leaves. This bullying is a form of bonding for James and Sirius and forms the basis of their friend group. This is an example of bullying driven by Peer Group factors (source), and this sort of bullying is generally done to:

to attain or maintain social power or to elevate their status in their peer group.

to show their allegiance to and fit in with their peer group.

to exclude others from their peer group, to show who is and is not part of the group.

What we're seeing here is that the soon-to-be Marauders are in new environment and they're defining their peer group and establishing social hierarchy, trying to establish their status. The Marauders continue in this pattern of Peer Group bullying throughout their school career, as evidenced by the detention records Snape has Harry transcribe in HBP. The Marauders seem to have thrown out hexes in a scattershot way to establish superiority over other students and look cool. This casual, incidental sort of bullying is likely what Snape experienced for the first several years of school.

But what we see in SWM isn't bullying to maintain Peer Group dynamics. This bullying isn't just flinging a single insult or a clever hex. James and Sirius hunt Snape, they deprive him of his wand and ability to escape the situation, and they repeatedly hex him until Lily (temporarily) stops them. This incident is extremely personal. This is an example of bullying driven by Emotional factors, and this type of bullying is done when the bullies:

have feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem, so they bully to make themselves feel more powerful.

don’t know how to control their emotions, so they take out their feelings on other people.

may not have skills for handling social situations in healthy, positive ways.

What we're seeing here is all the fraying edges of the Marauders' friendship. Sirius has just damaged their group, but he can't apologize or address it without accepting blame, so he has to take his emotions out on Snape. Punishing Snape is a way to exorcise his guilt. And it's actually imperative that he bully Snape into silence, because he is the one who has revealed Lupin's secret to Snape and put them all in jeopardy. Lupin can't confront Sirius about the betrayal of trust, and likewise he can't confront his friends here. Not only does Lupin not have the emotional security for handling this situation, he also can't risk putting himself in front of Snape in this moment, lest Snape scream "Werewolf" instead of "Mudblood." James is here trying to work through his own insecurities – in bullying Snape he is defending his friends, but James is also trying to get Lily's attention. James offers to change his ways if she'll give him a chance, because James needs to reassure himself that he is chivalrous, that he is a hero.

Looking at the way the bullying dynamics change and escalate in those two scenes, I think it’s clear that Lupin’s line, “Snape was a special case. I mean, he never lost an opportunity to curse James so you couldn't really expect James to take that lying down,” is an understatement.

Snape was a special case because he knew Lupin’s secret, which would always make him a potential threat. The Marauders would always take any opportunity they could to reinforce that Snape was powerless to do anything to them. And they’d continue to take out all their emotions about the prank on Snape rather than confronting each other.

Happy birthday to Severus Snape! the edition is done in Shuffles

Sexual Violence: Concept, Implications, and Consequences

I'm going to say this very seriously because I couldn't care less if you dislike a character and have a pathological need to justify another one at all costs, just because you can't handle being a fan of a guy who wasn't actually a hero. I usually like characters who are absolute pieces of shit, so I have no problem with this, but it seems that some people take it way too personally.

But I don't care. I don't care if you hate Severus Snape. I don't care if you need to call him a Nazi or a racist or any of those things that are neither true nor have any real political, social, or cultural comparison within the lore of the saga. I don't care if you have to invent that he was a stalker or a harasser when he wasn't, or if you need to say he never showered and was ugly because you have the mental age of a five-year-old. I don't give a damn.

There is something beyond fandom, beyond personal taste, and beyond internet wars, and that is the fact of JUSTIFYING a sexual assault.

So, as someone who, due to life circumstances, has spent several years in therapy, had to go to therapy precisely because of being in relationships involving violence and abuse, and who also has training in the prevention of gender-based violence, sexual violence, and sexual abuse, I am going to extend an act of courtesy to all these people who, either out of ignorance, lack of knowledge, or simply because they have empathy shoved up their ass, are denying that certain things constitute sexual violence. I will provide a free lesson on this very serious topic, because I am seeing people who literally have the same discourse as the average potential abuser who denies violence unless the victim is half-dead in a hospital. And I will explain why this view is so incredibly problematic.

This post is going to be long, guys, so get ready:

Sexual violence is a complex phenomenon that encompasses much more than rape. There has been a concerning trend of minimizing or even denying certain forms of sexual violence. This has a serious impact on both society’s perception of these offenses and the struggle of victims for recognition of their suffering. I'm gonna address what constitutes sexual assault from a legal, moral, and psychological perspective, why it is problematic to deny or minimize it, and how such denial not only discredits victims but also contradicts the very principles that many people defend in other areas.

1. What Is Sexual Assault and What Acts Does It Include?

Sexual assault is not limited to rape. In general terms, any sexual act committed against a person’s will, without their consent, or through coercion can be considered sexual assault. This includes non-consensual touching, forced exhibitionism, sexualized verbal harassment, and, in some cases, acts that involve public humiliation of a sexual nature, such as forcibly stripping someone against their will.

From a legal standpoint, different jurisdictions have established that sexual violence does not require penetration to be considered an offense. For example, the Spanish Penal Code, following its 2022 reform, specifies that any act that violates a person’s sexual freedom without their consent is considered sexual assault. In other countries, similar legislation reinforces the idea that rape is only one form of sexual assault but not the only one.

2. The Importance of Consent

One of the key elements in determining whether an act constitutes sexual assault is consent. Consent must be explicit, informed, and voluntary. It is not merely the absence of a "no" but the presence of a "yes" that is free from coercion. In cases such as forced public stripping, the lack of consent is evident, and the humiliation imposed on the victim has an undeniable sexual component, making it an act of sexual violence.

Moreover, the perpetrator’s intent is not the determining factor in classifying an act as sexual assault. That is, the aggressor does not need to have a sexual intent; what matters is the impact on the victim and the nature of the act itself. This is a fundamental distinction in criminal law and forensic psychology.

3. The Psychological Impact of Sexual Violence

Sexual assaults have devastating consequences for victims. Various studies have shown that people who suffer this type of violence may experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, shame, and loss of self-esteem. In cases such as forced stripping, there is an added element of public humiliation that can generate an extreme sense of vulnerability and helplessness, with lasting psychological effects.

When it is denied that these acts constitute sexual assault, victims’ suffering is minimized, and their experiences are delegitimized. This is particularly serious when denial comes from individuals who identify as human rights advocates, as it perpetuates the very structural violence they claim to seek to eradicate.

4. The Minimization of Sexual Violence and Its Implications

Denying that certain actions constitute sexual violence has multiple negative consequences:

It minimizes victims’ suffering: By denying that something is sexual violence, victims are told that their pain is not legitimate or that their experience is not valid.

It discredits years of feminist and legislative struggle: For decades, feminist and human rights movements have worked to ensure recognition of the multiple forms of sexual assault. Denying these assaults is a step backward in these advancements.

It reinforces a culture of impunity: When sexual assault is justified or minimized, it contributes to a culture in which these acts are neither socially nor legally sanctioned.

It implies victim-blaming: Denying that something is sexual violence can lead to blaming the victim for their emotions or for "exaggerating" their suffering, which is a form of revictimization.

5. The Hypocrisy of Justifying Assaults Based on Ideology

A serious issue arises when certain sectors justify sexual violence against specific individuals based on their ideology or social position. It is deeply ironic and hypocritical that those who accuse a person of being a "Nazi" or "racist" without solid evidence then deny that this person can be a victim of sexual violence. This attitude is not only morally reprehensible but also aligns dangerously with historical strategies used by totalitarian regimes, where sexual humiliation was employed as a method of torture and punishment.

Denying sexual violence against someone because of their ideology is, in essence, justifying it. This is not only a form of dehumanization but also contradicts the principles of universal human rights. Legal protections must apply to all individuals, regardless of their ideology, past, or character. Justifying violence based on the victim’s ideology leads to a dangerously fascist stance, the very thing that many claim to oppose.

6. Conclusion about this:

Sexual violence is a structural problem that goes beyond fandom wars or ideological debates. It has real psychological damage, serious legal consequences, and a profound social impact. Denying or minimizing it is not only irresponsible but perpetuates a culture in which victims are silenced and perpetrators remain unpunished.

Those who consider themselves progressive and human rights advocates have a moral responsibility to be consistent in their discourse. One cannot condemn one form of violence while justifying another depending on who the victim is. Sexual violence is sexual violence, regardless of whom it is committed against, and denying it is a betrayal of the fundamental principles of justice and human dignity.

Action Painter, 2011-2014

Kahn + Selesnick