I limited myself to reporting canonical facts, I reported exact parts of the books; you can't deny that.
Then using terms like Nazism or fascism is truly inappropriate.
I tell you this as an Italian, my country experienced fascism, we know what it is, and using such strong terms is problematic, especially if you use them to attack a fictional character with such rage.
Snape was not a Nazi; he didn't believe in purism; the author made that clear. He joined, as I said, for protection and power; he didn't hate Muggle-borns.
This doesn't change the fact that he was obviously wrong; I've never denied this point, and I never will.
But writing falsehoods like you did is unfair, and I answered you point by point precisely for this reason
It’s been established that hexing is not seen as bullying or attacks. Now, would I have probably changed that in canon? Sure. But they have a distinct difference in the wizarding world between hexes, jinxes, and curses.
How convenient, Snape is an evil bully for you, a Nazi because he uses a slur, while bullies who attack, curse, publicly strip, humiliate, and use illegal spells (like the one canonically used on Bertram Aubery) aren't real bullies. Oh no, because in the wizarding world, it works differently. Do you realize what you're writing? How inconsistent this is?
James never curses anyone innocent.
Oh, so cursing someone who isn't innocent is legitimate?
Really? The concept of innocence here scares me a bit. But once again, you've said something false. As mentioned earlier, Bertram Aubery was cursed by James and Sirius with an illegal spell.
MEMORIES.
No, once again, memories in the Harry Potter world are objective. In the real world, they are certainly distorted by our emotions, by how we experience them. I agree with that. But as I wrote to you, in the Harry Potter world, the Pensieve has the very function of showing what happened. If memories weren't reliable, there would be no point in such an object existing. And I repeat, the judgments we hear are those of Harry, who is an external observer. What's your thesis?
That Snape has distorted memories that he hid so Harry wouldn't see them? So why are they distorted? Because he was biased? So what actually happened? How can being attacked two-on-one while minding your own business, being choked, thrown to the ground, and stripped naked, be legitimate? The one here is absurdly trying to justify bad actions is you.
Peter is implied muggleborn.
What? No o.O
This is your assumption based on nothing.
If you like the headcanon, that's fine, but you can't pass it off as canon. And even if it were, it wouldn't change anything. I could tell you that Snape is a half-blood living in the Muggle world and is poor. He has more in common with Lily (in terms of his life before Hogwarts) than with any pureblood. So what?
Classists? This is about racism. Racism. Don't try to downplay it. Wizard blood aren't classes. They are treated as races. Hence why halfblood, being mixed, exists. You aren't mixed class. You are mixed race.
I'm not talking about classism because it is what it is and it's not a way to minimize it; classism is wrong and evil. But I'm always very hesitant, as I wrote before, to use such important terms for fictional stories. This isn't meant to be disrespectful, but quite the opposite. Saying that the Death Eaters are classist isn't to minimize their guilt. It stems from observing what we have in the saga: Grindelwald, if you will, was racist; he hated Muggles as a species, calling them animals, and wanted to subjugate them.
People like Malfoy, on the other hand (just to give an example), don't hate Muggle-borns as a race, they hate what they represent. They don't just respect blood; they respect wealth and the power that can come with it. Just think of how the Weasleys are treated: even though they are purebloods, part of the sacred 28, they are treated like scum because they are poor and have little influence. On the contrary, those who demonstrate the ability to acquire power even if they aren't purebloods are respected (see Voldemort, Snape, etc.). This isn't to say it's right, of course, but it's just to clarify. If you want to call them racist and that doesn't bother you, go ahead. It doesn't change the gravity of what they do, precisely because I don't justify them.
And they never target Lily because she was Snape's obsession. Your argument gives "Oh, I have black friends." Yeah, most racists don't target their bipoc friends but they call other bipoc strangers slurs and attack them. Tale as old as time. You should know, it happens in Italy a lot.
You're still going on about this obsession, but it doesn't hold up; it's an argument I've been debunking for years. And the fact that Snape is Lily's friend is precisely what you wrote. The same goes for James and Sirius; the fact that they're friends with Peter and Remus doesn't prove they're not bullies just because they're with them. When I wrote that Lily isn't attacked by Mulciber and Avery, it was to show the difference between what Snape endures (which you think is less serious) and what Lily endures. But you're conveniently glossing over the issue.
Being humiliated is no excuse for a slur. It really sounds like you're trying to justify that no matter what disclaimer you put before it. I don't get why you would say "really?"
I never said being humiliated was an excuse to use a slur; I wrote that clearly.
I quoted a direct excerpt from the fifth book, which shows why Snape explodes, and it's not just humiliation but Lily's near-laugh. That's what triggers him. Is that wrong?
Of course it's wrong, and I wrote that clearly too. I don't know why you're trying to trivialize or twist what I wrote when it's clearly there, black on white.
This take is weird. Are you saying that if you had a best friend that was black and they did something shitty to you that you would called them the n word in the heat of the moment? Because you just implied that you could use a slur in the heat of the moment even if you're not used to it.
No, actually in the situation I compared myself to Lily if you notice, saying that in her shoes I would never have sneered at my best friend (Snape) being humiliated.
And don't say you didn't imply that because you seem baffled that I would ever say a person wouldn't say a slur in the heat of the moment unless they use it regularly.
Again, no, you're the one trying to read it this way. I'm confused by your saying a person wouldn't use an insult in the heat of the moment unless they used it regularly. Why would you apply it to Lily, too? Do you think she's used to using Snivellus behind Snape's back? How could that term occur to her if she's not used to using it? From my reading of the scene, both Snape and Lily want to hurt each other. Snape calling her Mudblood, and she calling him Snivellus.
Don't tell me that you're trying to say Lily calling Snape Snivellus is the equivalent to him saying a slur.
I know it carries a different weight, but my emphasis on what Lily experiences and what Snape experiences is precisely for this reason. What he endures for years is physical, emotional, and persecution. His use of a slur is wrong but limited to the word (however wrong), while Lily's use of Snivellus places her alongside Potter and what he is inflicting on Snape.
you can sure say a teasing nickname out of the blue one day. Be so for real in that argument. Think about it for a moment please.
It's a behavior I personally don't agree with. I believe that using someone's sensitive spots to hurt them is a mean attitude, one I try to avoid in life. No matter how bitterly I argue with someone I care about, if I know there's a button I shouldn't push, I won't push it. No matter how much the other person may have offended me, I won't do it, because I know how it feels and I don't want anyone else to feel the same way. And that's my point: I don't want to justify Snape or Lily, but rather understand what happened in that scene. Understanding rationally doesn't mean justifying.
Also you actually quoted text from the book that states "as though she was" meaning Snape isn't even sure if she was actually going to smile or not. This also proves the point that in canon memories are not objective by the way.
Harry sees it because he is actively inside Snape's memory. What does this point even mean? That doesn't make Snape's memory objective or infallible.
Once again, what we hear as a thought is Harry's; he himself thinks Lily is almost smiling, proving that an outside observer is capable of judging what's happening.
Otherwise, sorry, but the entire sixth book with the memories collected by Dumbledore would be a complete waste.
I mean, poor Voldemort isn't that bad, it's just that Dumbledore is prejudiced like everyone else and their memories are unreliable. (Obviously, I'm being ironic here.)
But the point is that the function of the Pensieve is precisely to review memories as they occurred. If memories were unreliable, like in the real world, then it wouldn't make sense.
It would be like saying that surveillance videos aren't reliable, so what's the point of having video evidence?
Notice how I have also called Lily out for being a hypocrite. So I don't know what this point does. Also, it isn't a defense of Snape. It just makes Lily a hypocrite. Something I've said before. I think I've said it multiple times across posts actually.
In fact, we agree on this. My intent is not to justify Snape. Lily's mistakes certainly don't erase Severus's. I believe the reality is more complex, even in a story like this. There aren't just Snape apologists (who justify any horrendous action) or haters of the Marauders or Lily. Even if we have different views, we can agree on certain things and find a balance. That was my point here.
Is physical attacking your only version of harassment? Girl, pack it up. Pack it up. Verbal harassment is a real thing.
Okay, I have to clarify this. I think I misunderstood what you meant. Insults are certainly harassment, and stalking someone with an insult is harassment. I understood harassment as physical aggression; in Italian we have different terms. I've found myself speaking several times with fans who clearly said that Snape cursed Muggle-borns and physically attacked them, and I think I've fallen into the assumption that you meant that too.
My mistake here, I apologize.
I agree, harassment can also be verbal, and using a slur is certainly bullying. That a slur has a different weight than Snivellus, socially, historically, and emotionally, absolutely, even in the fictional story. I'm not comparing them in weight, but in the characters' experiences. The drama of the scene (and the following one in which Snape tries to apologize) is that both said things they didn't mean, but the other thinks they were intentional. I'm not sure I can explain this clearly.
Lily uses the name the vile bullies have been using to torment him for years, joins in his humiliation, leaves him alone with James and Sirius while he's stripped.
This hurts him. She, on the other hand, is hurt by the slur; her world is falling apart at that moment. Her best friend has insulted her like never before, and she thinks this means he lied, that he thinks that about her. They were both wrong, but they crossed the line. Even though Snape apologized, it's too late.
Notice how Snape tries to say Dark Magic his friends do is the equivalent to the marauders sneaking out at night and Lupin being a werewolf. He doesn't deny dark magic. He doesn't even try to accuse the marauders of Dark Magic. He tries to imply that using Dark Magic on Mary is the same as sneaking out at night and being a werewolf.
The temporal context is important here; Snape isn't just annoyed by the Marauders, he's severely bullied. The scene we're talking about takes place AFTER The Prank, so, as I wrote, after Snape nearly got killed by Lupin.
Snape has discovered that the Marauders come out at night, breaking the rules, that Lupin is a dangerous werewolf, and that the four Gryffindors aren't punished for it. He's forbidden from telling the truth about what happened to him, while James is made out to be a hero, and Snape is humiliated. In this scene, he's frustrated; he's trying to explain to Lily what he's been through.
He downplays what Mulciber tried to do to Mary (we don't know what that is), and that's wrong, of course, but isn't that the same thing Remus does, even as an adult? Why is it okay if Remus covers up or downplays his friends while they attack, use illegal spells, risk Snape's death, etc., but if Snape downplays what his friend does, he's a monster? Should we also hold Remus guilty for what his friends do, since he downplays it? This seems like double standards to me. I expect the same attitude in both cases, and to me, both are wrong. To confirm that I'm not justifying Snape here.
Saying it's just unrequited love and not an obsession is ridiculous. Unrequited love for multiple years, especially of a person you have called slurs, to the point where you are willing to sacrifice their entire family to be with them... yeah, that's an obsession.
This is another distortion. I'd honestly be curious to know what makes you define this obsession, but I don't know if you're willing; it's a long and nuanced point. But if the main point is what you wrote here, it doesn't hold up.
especially of a person you have called slurs
Yes, he did it ONCE and immediately apologized, while Lily never apologized. This doesn't change Snape's mistake in using the slur, but it's an important detail.
or the point where you are willing to sacrifice their entire family to be with them... yeah, that's an obsession.
Snape wasn't willing to sacrifice the entire family. What gave you that point? I explained it to you in detail. Snape asked for mercy for Lily because it was the only thing he could ask for (and he still took a risk, we're talking about Voldemort, a guy who can throw an Avada Kedavra at you if his bludgers are in a spin. Poor Pius was annoyed just for saying "My Lord" at the wrong time.)
Sorry. I expected him to at least pour a drink out for the little homie when he got back to his flat
This is your opinion, absolutely legitimate, but it falls under an unrealistic expectation. You are a different person from Snape, as am I. It would be like me telling you that Lily is a horrible friend because she left Snape alone during TWM, because I wouldn't have done that. I would have stayed, I would have actively defended him with my wand, attacking James, and only then would I have argued with Snape. But the fact that I wouldn't leave my best friend alone in that situation depends on who I am, on my mentality and my experiences, just like it does for you.
Snape isn't a nice person; he doesn't have the same level of empathy as you or I do. Simply from what we see from Harry being a goner and when he also goes to Dumbledore (risking himself again), he's now convinced that the only thing he can do is protect Lily. Even if he never cared about Harry and shrugged his shoulders from the beginning (our guess), that doesn't change what happened. Which is obviously not the case:
rather than actively telling his boss, "Hey, go ahead and kill that toddler as long as you spare my crush."
It wasn't a trade like: I'll give you the baby in exchange for Lily; there was no negotiation; Harry was already done for.
The point still stands that he doesn't change out of the goodness of his heart, but because he was chasing some tail that he called a slur.
I'll overlook the manipulative way you phrased that sentence, but ultimately, I can ask you: so what? Do you really think Snape could change out of the kindness of his heart? What character IN THE ENTIRE SERIES has ever changed out of the mere goodness of his heart? Let's think about it for a second:
- Regulus only tried to defeat Voldemort after he injured Krecher
- James showed himself to be a bit better (even though he still attacked Snape behind Lily's back in his senior year) just to impress her and go out with her
- Draco desperately tried to survive, scared of the situation he was in - Narcissa lied, but only to save her family
These are just the first that came to mind. The point is that realistically, no one changes overnight just out of the kindness of their heart. There has to be something that makes you change, something that makes you realize the mistakes you've made, and that takes time. In The Cursed Child, this is slightly revealed, with an AU in which Harry is dead and Snape continues to fight Voldemort, precisely because he says that over time he's begun to truly believe in the cause. But it took years for a real change.
There isn't proof Levicorpus was only designed to dangle the ankles and not take off underwear.
So I guess the official guides describing spell effects don't matter to you.
Why, then, please tell me how did James get Snape's trousers and underwear off without saying a second spell?
Exactly, this proves what I said. In the book, James uses Levicorpus to humiliate Snape. He doesn't take off his trousers precisely because he doesn't have any, and he threatens to take off Snape's underwear (so my point is confirmed). Levicorpus, as we are also shown when Harry uses it on Ron, lifts you by the ankle Stop, that's its effect.
How you use it is up to you (hence my example with the knife).
So that very logically means Snape created a spell that would lift people by their ankles, causing their robes to fall down and panties to be exposed because no wizards wear trousers.
No, this is your unproven assumption. I never said that no wizard wears trousers, only that it is permitted by school and that we see many wizards in the wizarding world who don't wear them. But others, like Harry, Ron, etc., wear them. So no, Snape didn't create Levicorpus to humiliate people by showing their underwear. Saying that would be like saying that whoever invented table knives is a criminal because there are those who use them to hurt people. I repeat, it depends on how you use it.
Furthermore, even following your logic, what do you mean? That inventing a spell is horrible while JUST using it is fine? Your initial point was to say that James didn't want to take off Snape's underwear but his pants, and I've proven you wrong, that's all. James intended to undress Snape in public, and this is an SA
You made assumptions about how memories work.
No, I based my reasoning on canonical facts.
Does that deny the fact that it is convenient that Snape never shows in memories him using the spell or him using Sectumsempra (which we know he made and used as well)? No. Because Snape actively chose what memories to give Harry.
Now, you're confusing two sides here. When Harry sees TWM, it's in the fifth book. He violates Snape's privacy by immersing himself in the Pensieve. Snape doesn't choose anything there; in fact, he's angry that he saw it.
People can choose what memories to give, and Snape chose to leave out anything related to those. He chose to leave out most things related to him being a racist, yet the stuff that was still shown is awful, so (and now here's an assumption) how bad was the rest of it then?
The only time he chooses which memories to give is before his death, and here he gives himself fragments so that Harry can make the final sacrifice. Snape is dying here; he doesn't have time to worry about making a good impression on Harry. He thinks quickly and gives him what he can, and as you wrote, he also shows him his mistakes, the TWM, having revealed the prophecy (which he doesn't know Harry has already discovered), and his negative attitudes. If he had wanted to clean up his act, he could have done so, but instead he gave him everything we see.
Your attempt at exonerating racism is shameful.
So he's acting like Snape was in his right to expose a secret about someone that was none of his business.
That's not the case. I don't think Snape is entitled to expose a secret that doesn't concern him. I think IN HIS MIND it makes sense to make public what happened because it's unfair, and he risked being kil**d but can't say it.
Remus is perhaps the most innocent of the Marauders; his fault is for not stopping them, for not standing up to the bullying. For Snape, this is also unfair because the four sneak out at night, attack him, and aren't punished for it, and he wants some justice, which is why he follows them (as absurd as it is to think that someone with an invisibility cloak and the Marauder's map could actually be followed). And of course, Remus is caught in the middle, but precisely because Sirius reveals his friend's secret first, he exposes him and puts Snape in serious danger. Is it really so strange that the Slytherin wants some justice? I repeat, he risked his life and can't say it.
With Levicorpus, sure, I'll give you that.
But actively seeking out someone's secret that could destroy them if it got out? That's not a victim, no matter how you try to spin it. I don't think Snape is a victim because he's trying to discover Remus's secret. Or I think he's a victim of bullying because of what James and Sirius do to him.
And you have to admit that it's ridiculous to think someone is a werewolf (which we know he suspects before the incident) and know that werewolves can't control themselves on the full moon, and then you still follow them.
No, I've already explained this to you; you're confusing the chronology of events.
Snape knows that the Marauders come out at night and that Remus is involved, but he doesn't know that he's a werewolf. The conversation you're referring to takes place AFTER The Prank, when Snape is certain that Remus is a werewolf because he saw him. Even if I had suspected it, what do you mean? That he was asking for it? So I'm right, you're blaming the victim.
I, too, would call a Nazi a stupid name as an adult. Because he was a Nazi.
The problem is, that's not the reason.
Sirius calls Severus Snivellus since first year, when he doesn't even know him yet. It's not that he calls him "Ugly Death Eater," he doesn't hate him because he's branded; Sirius insults him like he always did as a boy, demonstrating that he hasn't matured much since then.
Making kids cry, calling them names, actively hating a child because you hate his daddy... that's bullying, not a double standard.
I told you clearly that if you think Snape's behavior as a teacher is bullying, I agree, but we have to say the same for McGonagall. I wrote an in-depth post on this very thing.
That makes him a horrible human being.
Yes, and?
I'm not an apologist, I don't justify every piece of shit Snape did; he wasn't a nice person, I've always said that.
Just because black people bully me doesn't mean I go to the KKK for protection and respect. Respect? You want to be respected by racists?
It's not something I said, it's a statement from the author.
I wouldn't have joined the Death Eaters either; I'm just reporting canonical facts.
At this point, I'm tired of saying it, but pack it up. Pack it up. You keep actively equating Snivellus to a racial slur. I have to ask the genuine question: do you mean to do that? Do you think they are equal?
I already answered you above.
I don't think they're the same or have the same weight (Snivellus and Mudblood), but I find it very convenient that you gloss over the years of bullying, being suffocated, humiliated, stripped, and almost killed. At this point, I have to ask you: would it be worse to use a racial slur or to hit someone?
They're both wrong, we agree on that, but do you really want to say which is worse? Are all the things I listed less serious than using a slur?
Are you seriously trying to compare things to see who's worse? Are you belittling The Prank just to make Snape look worse because he uses slurs? Because he invented Sectumsempra? Are the things he did as a student more serious than being stripped in public, suffocated, and almost killed?
Come on, you're not serious, tell me You're serious.
Especially because do Mic Drop and calling Snape a Nazi doesn't settle the matter, it's just a lazy attempt to overshadow everything else.
And numerical superiority vs racism.... Racism.
This attitude is really ridiculous.
First you say there wasn't an imbalance of power between James, Sirius, and Snape, and when I prove to you that there is, you just reply: Racism.
Aside from the fact that one thing doesn't exclude the other, Snape's racism doesn't apply to James and Sirius, so it's not as if the two things are balanced. Snape has racist ideas, and James and Sirius use their superiority to bully him; the two things coexist.
All you've been doing is dragging the marauders as if that then makes Snape better. Okay, so they both suck, now what? That still makes him shitty, and that still leaves me not a stan.
No, what I did was correct the misstatements you made by reporting canonical facts. In no way does one's fault erase the others', and that's the point: accepting that neither Snape nor the Marauders were good people at school.
You, on the other hand, whether you realize it or not, have fallen into double standards, trying to justify the Marauders while slinging mud at Snape for distorted facts. Be careful, I'm not saying Snape isn't to blame—he is, and a lot of it—but if you want to provide an analysis, you have to stick to the canonical facts. For years, many fans have been using assumptions, distortions, and incorrect chronologies, thus confusing new fans.
Honesty is needed.
You don't have to be a Snape defender; you don't have to like the character; that's fine. My intent isn't to make you a Snape Stan, but only to correct the misstatements you've written.
You scare me by defending racism, and that's not even me being funny. That genuinely bothers and concerns me.
I hope by the end of this post, it's clear that I'm not defending racism, classism, or even justifying any of the things listed. What I'm offering is an analysis that I hope will be useful. When I say I'm afraid of Marauder Stans, I'm serious, precisely because, unfortunately, I've had to deal with people who said things like: "Snape deserved to be bullied," "I would have bullied him too," and even worse things, not to mention threats made to real people.
Snape Stans, on the other hand, don't justify what the character does, they don't praise him for the horrible things he does, nor do they threaten Marauder Stans.
I love a good villain. I love a morally gray character. I don't try to erase that. Love Snape as a character but admit that he is a bad fucking human being.
And once again, I agree with you.
I love Snape as a character, but I've always maintained he's not a nice person.
Peace.
