"Why Can't The Freaks On AO3 Just Go And Make A Site For All The Gross Stuff And Leave AO3 Alone."

Lol James died because he treated Peter like a pet

james potter stans are a bunch of cowards, they need to hide behind james poc's hc to avoid dealing with reality: he was a white, rich, privileged guy who thought he had the right to hex anyone who annoyed him.

"James takes care of everyone, but who takes care of James?"

SIRIUS HIS BEST FRIEND WHO WOULD DO ANYTHING FOR HIM!!!! HIS PARENTS WHO SPOIL HIM TO DEATH!!!! REMUS WHO CAN ONLY SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT HIM!!!!!! LILY HIS FUCKING WIFE!!!!!

This post sums up all of my most recent thoughts. It feels good to see some sense amid all this chaos.

I don't understand why people say that all hp fans are responsible for Rowling’s actions. How? She did that on her own.

Because, tbh, if you're someone who isn't particularly interested in HP it's basically free morality points. It's easy to do absolute fuck all and then point at others and go "see? I'm morally superior to them because I'm not sacrificing ethics for a kids book!"

The trouble is that all of us are in some way 'sacrificing ethics' all the time in order to maintain the lifestyle we've grown accustomed to. And I'll add that in ways that are much more flagrant than simply talking about a book online. I don't see these people being nearly as gung-ho about everyone giving up amazon or twitter or else they're evil, when using those platforms has a DIRECT, completely unambiguous effect on our society. The reason they're so intense about this in particular is because not caring about HP is something they're already doing without expending any effort whatsoever, therefore it's an easy, cheap way to feel better about themselves at the expense of others.

Seeing the idea that reading/discussing a book means you agree with the author politically propagated on here so uncritically has honestly been... idk pretty surprising to me. The bottom line is I'll never agree with the belief that it's morally wrong to read or discuss any work of literature, I'll never agree with preventing anyone (children or adults) from reading any literature. Like ok conservative queens, what books should we ban next?

But apart from that, I think the fact that the conversation around the ruling has become so focused on HP/fandom in general is a problem.

Strategically, it's absolutely BONKERS, like insanely braindead and counterproductive, to try and tie the issue of trans rights to liking Harry Potter or not. Tbh this might even have the opposite effect, and drive (admittedly fairly weak-willed) people away. But weak-willed or not, how is it at all a sound strategy to alienate people from an issue of basic civil rights over their preferences in literature. If you can recognise that people are too 'selfish' (or whatever you want to call it) to give up their interest in HP for purity's sake, idk, change your tactics because this isn't helping anyone. This is what I mean about more focus on the moral purity of individuals and their thoughts rather than on material reality.

I even think some guilt-tripping in the sense of 'all HP fans should donate 10€ to trans charities before they can be absolved of sin' (obviously not phrased exactly like that lmao) would be soooo much more effective in a material sense. Like tbh I think that would be a fairly successful campaign. If you can harness the guilt many HP fans are likely feeling into something more productive and materially helpful than a twitter beef like... idk I'm all for it. But you can pretty clearly see that a lot of this is more about personal validation than anything else-- otherwise HP fans would be viewed as potential allies to recruit rather than, for some stupid reason, the enemy.

Severus Snape and Sirius Black are narrative mirrors, mainly for their shared grief for a lost loved one but also for how they both projected their relationship with James onto Harry.

Sirius saw James in Harry. He wished James was in Harry and the main reason he protected and loved Harry was because of his devotion and grief for James. He did love Harry regardless, but he still connected James to Harry significantly to a point he didn’t recognize Harry as his own person.

Severus saw James in Harry. He convinced himself James is in Harry, because he hated seeing Lily in Harry. He hated looking into those eyes, so he kept himself in denial, because that's how he coped.

Sirius isn't a manchild that only saw Harry as James. But there is a character in canon that is like that, and that character is Snape.

Not all kinks have to be accepted. We should accept that it's normal to have these kinks and not shame the people for it, but some practices of kinks shouldn’t be supported or normalized as a good thing. Talking about cnc mostly. It is dangerous to participate in it and people should be wary to even consider it if they have these fantasies. It's okay to have all types of fantasies, but not every fantasy is good for the person or anyone involved. Critical thinking is important in this context. But I agree with the rest.

Boundary setting, LGBTQIA acceptance, and kink positivity, and enthusiastic consent are requirements of a sex positive culture.

So, last night I got to thinking what I want Snape in my interpretation to look like, so please take this offering with my thought process

And after that I also made a rough sketch for a fun idea with a late night sneaking around that I l've got, so here's that as well

"Detention, Potter."

But doesn’t him saving the world (like defeating a whole Basilisk, always running, even at the tournament) plus the quidditch training he did, imply he was athletic? And people could even assume insanely. When he got put on the team it was because McGonagall saw his talent and potential. And it wasn’t even a full game. He was very talented (+ the boy who lived so people naturally gave him more attention) and athletic. Not in a buff macho way. Just in a strong, competent way.

So I think your original post is kind of wrong, that's what I wanted to say. But if you don’t see it then I suppose it's fine to leave it at that 🤷‍♀️

describing harry as "an insanely athletic man" while all he does is sit on a flying broom is crazy work

Educated = Hot

The Class Dynamics between James Potter and Severus Snape: A Critical Analysis:

This is a dedication to all those who say that class has nothing to do with the bullying that James exerted on Severus, to those who claim that James couldn't be classist because "he never proactively despised anyone for being poor" or because "he was friends with Remus," to those who say "Snape also attacked him" or suggest it was a "rivalry" and that they were on equal footing, or simply to those who say they are "fictional characters" and that fiction has nothing to do with reality, blah blah blah. This is something I have written with bibliographical references because, once in a while, I can stop being a simp goof and show off my university degree in political science. And yes, I am going to be an authentic pedant because I can, and because many people seem to live in a candy-coated world regarding these issues, and it wouldn't hurt them to get a bit educated. That said, here goes my essay:

When analysing the interactions between James Potter and Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" universe, it is common to find vehement defences of James, arguing that his bullying was not class-motivated. However, it is crucial to untangle how class dynamics operate structurally and how this influences interpersonal relationships. James Potter, as a member of a wealthy, pure-blood family, represents the dominant class, while Severus Snape, coming from a poor, working-class background, embodies the subordinate classes. In the magical world, pure-blood lineage is associated with inherited privileges similar to aristocracy in the real world, where blood purity is a marker of status and power. Authors like Anderson and Löwe (2006) have explored how heritage and lineage have been determining factors in the distribution of power and privileges throughout history, both in fictional and real contexts. This socioeconomic background plays a crucial role in the power dynamics between characters like James and Severus, highlighting how class structures affect their interactions and perpetuate inequality.

Social class, according to Marxist analysis, is a structural category that determines individuals' positions within society based on their access to the means of production. In "Harry Potter", pure-blood status equates to magical aristocracy, while Muggle-borns, Half-Bloods with muggle parent and those from humble origins, like Snape, represent the working or marginalised classes. James Potter, on the other hand, embodies the privileges of the elite, not only through his wealth but also through his lineage, which grants him a status that influences his interactions with others.

The bullying James exerts over Severus cannot be disconnected from its socioeconomic context. Although James may not have explicitly expressed disdain towards Severus for being poor, the way he exploits his superior position to humiliate and subdue Severus reflects power dynamics based on class. Pierre Bourdieu describes how power structures are reproduced through symbolic violence, where the dominant classes impose their cultural and social legitimacy over the subordinate ones, perpetuating inequality. In the context of 'Harry Potter', this symbolic violence is reflected in how the magical aristocracy imposes its values and norms on those of humble origin. The public humiliations James inflicts on Severus are not just acts of bullying but also manifestations of a structural power that favours the privileged like James. Besides Bourdieu, other theorists such as Michel Foucault could provide complementary perspectives on how power is exercised and perpetuated in institutions, in this case, Hogwarts as a microcosm of magical society.

In James and Severus's case, this symbolic violence manifests in the public humiliations James inflicts on Severus, using his status to ensure there are no significant repercussions. James's position as a popular and privileged student grants him social immunity that Severus, due to his humble origin, cannot counter. This demonstrates how class structures influence the dynamics of school bullying, where resources and social capital determine which behaviours are acceptable and which are not.

The "Harry Potter" fandom often minimises James's actions, portraying him as a mere prankster without malice, while pathologising Severus's response, attributing it to resentment and bitterness. This narrative reinforces the whitewashing of the actions of the rich and popular to the detriment of the poor and marginalised. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in their "Dialectic of Enlightenment", explain how the culture industry and hegemonic discourses contribute to naturalising domination relationships, presenting them as inevitable or even fair. Their analysis reveals that modern media perpetuates class dynamics by presenting power structures as natural and immutable. This can be observed in how the dominant narrative in the 'Harry Potter' franchise tends to glorify high-class characters like James while marginalising figures like Severus, whose resistance to the system is viewed with suspicion or disapproval. Contemporary studies, such as Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism" (2009), also highlight how media reinforces the current economic and social status quo, making it difficult to imagine alternatives to the existing system.

By justifying James's bullying as mere youthful pranks, the fandom perpetuates a narrative that excuses the abuse of power and classism, ignoring the impact these actions have on individuals like Severus, who are already in a structurally disadvantaged position. This reinforces social hierarchies and strips victims of their agency and dignity.

Severus's portrayal as a bullying victim is intrinsically linked to his social class. His marginalisation is not just a product of his actions or personal choices but a consequence of social structures that privilege figures like James Potter. Antonio Gramsci's theories on cultural hegemony are useful here to understand how the dominant class's ideas are imposed as normative, silencing the oppressed voices and legitimising the violence they suffer. In the 'Harry Potter' narrative, this hegemony manifests through the glorification of the values and behaviours of pure-blood characters like James, while the perspectives of the marginalised, like Severus, are dismissed or vilified. For example, the Marauders, led by James and Sirius, both rich pure-bloods, are portrayed as mischievous heroes despite their aggressive behaviour towards Snape, who is depicted much more negatively even when acting in self-defence. This reflects how cultural hegemony shapes public perception, perpetuating a value system that favours the privileged and marginalises the oppressed. Authors like Stuart Hall have explored how media and popular culture reinforce these hegemonic structures, underscoring the need for critical analysis to dismantle these dominant narratives.

Severus, in this sense, represents those who are constantly repressed by power structures and whose narrative is distorted to fit a worldview that favours the privileged. His resistance and eventual adoption of extreme ideologies can be understood as a response to this marginalisation, a desperate attempt to reclaim agency systematically denied to him.

To fully understand the relationship between James Potter and Severus Snape, it is essential to acknowledge the influence of class structures on their interactions. The narrative that minimises James's bullying and blames Severus perpetuates a simplistic and biased view that ignores the complexities of social inequality and power. By applying a critical analysis based on Marxist theories, we can unravel how classism permeates these relationships. Studies on young adult literature, such as those by Maria Nikolajeva, and the analysis of victimisation frameworks in popular culture by Henry Jenkins provide a theoretical framework that reinforces the need to re-examine fandom's conceptions to avoid perpetuating these structural injustices. These investigations highlight how narratives of power and oppression are often shaped by dominant interests and how this affects the public's perception of marginalised characters like Severus.

Actually both Harry and Snape had full rights to turn evil ngl

"Harry also had a shitty childhood and was bullied, but he didn’t turn out like Snape."

True, because:

Harry found refuge at Hogwarts, where he felt welcomed, supported, and protected from the very beginning. Severus did not.

Harry had adult figures who protected him, cared about him (Hagrid, the Weasleys, Dumbledore, Lupin, Sirius...), and showed him affection over the years. Severus did not.

Harry had two friends who would have torn apart anyone who dared to strip him in front of the entire school. Severus did not.

Harry and Malfoy had a rivalry because they were on equal footing. Severus was bullied by a group of guys who attacked him together and were far above him socially and economically.

Harry was rich—disgustingly rich, to be exact. Severus was disgustingly poor.

Harry felt loved from the moment Hagrid came for him just after his 11th birthday. Severus never felt loved in his entire damn life.

Harry was favored by Dumbledore and other school staff on multiple occasions. Dumbledore forced Severus to stay silent about an attempted murder against him.

Harry had choices. Severus had nothing.

They think enemies to lovers is just negative or angry banter with a grudge.

I think term enemies to lovers is so waterdowned and that's why people think harrymort is weird