[ SECRET POST #2889 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2889 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 051 secrets from Secret Submission Post #413.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Something that always bothered me a bit about Harry Potter is that I never felt a racism analog made sense.

Magical people simply ARE superior to non-magical people. Sure you can point to Muggle technology, but there's nothing about it that a magical person couldn't inherently grasp. But witches and wizards can do so much more than Muggles, it's not even funny.

It's not something stupid like skin color (which is a superficial trait). Magic users simply ARE superior.

I guess I just don't see how Slytherins are 100% wrong. Regarding Half-bloods and Muggle-borns, sure, but not about Magic vs. Muggles.

Magic IS might.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Magic is might

So are muggle weapons, but if you said that, say, America was better than the rest of the world because it had nuclear bombs, and thus America is superior, you'd get shot down, and rightly so.

And on that note, muggles have really terrifying weaponry, so that's a point in the favor of muggles. Another one is that, while wizards have floo, brooms, and teleportation (of various types), they also have to rely on muggle tech that they've altered for transportation, because wizarding travel has a lot of limitations: Floo? You can only go to a place that's also connected to the Floo network. Brooms? You can only carry so many people at a time. Portkeys? Can be messed with/altered. Apparation? Can only take so many people at once, and has to be done by a skilled user, or else splinching. Muggle tech is superior for carrying large groups of people, it's why the wizards use magicked trains, boats, carriages, cars, etc. instead of having a proper wizarding equivalent.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

But wizards can learn how to use Muggle weapons. There's nothing inherently stopping Draco Malfoy from learning science or how to fire a gun. But a muggle will never be able to use the killing curse.

That's what I mean -- Wizards are INHERENTLY better when compared to Muggles. Their stupid dogmatism has prevented them from taking advantage of science and technology, but they COULD. A muggle will NEVER be able to use spells. But a wizard COULD use a gun.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[comradesmiler]

Really? It seems as if the wizarding culture is perpetually stuck within the middle ages, and I don't really think there's really much innovation (or strive for innovation anyway).
Also you have certain witches and wizards wanting to pretty much go on muggle genocides.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, wizarding CULTURE. But a magic baby is simply superior to a muggle baby. You can teach both babies about science, technology, muggle culture, innovation, etc. But only the magical baby can learn spells and do magic.

That's what I mean by wizards being inherently superior.

It's not like white people vs black people where the only thing a white person can do that a black person can't is have white skin, basically.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

You may be a troll, but if you're not, I think you're missing the fact that the reason the racism was wrong and stupid in Harry Potter was because there was NO SUCH THING as pure-blood at all, that nearly all wizards had muggles in their bloodlines. If they didn't breed with muggles, they would've all died out. I think Hagrid said it in the second book or something, that everyone spouting the pureblood bullshit was delusional and probably inbred. Like how that thing went viral with the KKK leader finding out he had black ancestors.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that a wizard is inherently superior to a muggle. A wizard can do something that a muggle will never be able to do. (I'm not talking about the prejudice against muggle-borns and half-bloods --> that, like technological stagnation, is stupid as hell).

Humans consider ourselves better than other animals in large part because we're smarter and few people disagree with this idea.

Why, then, are wizards wrong for thinking they're better than muggles when they can do magic and muggles can't and never will be able to?

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Remember: the analogy only applies to muggle-borns, not muggles. Pure-bloods' racism against muggle-borns is unfounded. Muggle-borns can do anything they can do.

Muggles, though? The series is perfectly fine with racism against muggles as long as it doesn't go as far as actively murdering them. Interfering with their governments and passively murdering them by not warning them about psycho evil wizards who are going to kill them? S'all good.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I agree that the prejudice against Muggle-borns is stupid as hell.

But I don't see why wizards shouldn't view themselves as superior to muggles.

Magic IS might.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[feotakahari]

Hermione rewriting her parents' memories was beyond fucked up to me. I have no idea what Rowling was thinking.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Do you think that intelligent people are inherently superior to stupid people and should therefore rule over them?

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Well it's pretty hard to say that someone is more intelligent than another person in all areas is the thing. I might be better than you in music, but you might be better than me in science, for example. And there are very few people with zero talent in either.

With magic, though, it's very different because it's binary -- you either have it or you don't, so I don't really feel it's a proper comparison.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly this. Just because a person is more "superior" then another, doesn't mean you have the right to treat them bad. Like, I think many of us could agree that we have people in our lives who we consider more superior then we are, but if they started treating us like dirt, we wouldn't stand for it.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

In other words, meritocracy?

I'm a socialist myself, and I certainly don't think intellectuals should abuse the stupid unwashed working classes. But in my experience, an awful lot of people would say, "Yes, of course!"

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[feotakahari]

This reminds me way too much of the folks in My Little Pony fandom(!) who think they inherently have the power to kill people without qualms, and it makes them naturally better than folks who would have qualms about killing people. Utility isn't about raw power, it's about how that power is used. Wizards, like soldiers, would have value to the extent that they helped other people--and wizards in Harry Potter don't have a great track record in helping other people.

Edit: the analogy I always like to draw is lions. From a Darwinian perspective, lions that kill the cubs of other lions are superior competitors. They ensure that only their own genes will be passed down. But they hasten the species' extinction, so their genes will only survive in the short term. Power--whether the power to kill, the power to heal, the power to create, or the power to play the piano really well--means nothing if it's only used for personal gain.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

It's just that the whole Wizards vs Muggles things (especially in the final books) is framed as a racism or Nazi analog.

And I just think it doesn't make sense in the slightest. There really isn't any difference between the races -- race is a social construct. But being a wizard or a muggle isn't. And being a wizard gives you abilities that being a muggle doesn't. There's no advantage to being a muggle over a wizard.

Even qualms about killing people can be a good or bad thing depending on the situation. But I don't think there's ever a situation where having magic can be seen as a disadvantage the way not having magic is.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[arcadiaego]

People in the My Little Pony fandom want to kill other people???

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

You lost me at MPL fans wanting to kill people.

even more off topic

[(Anonymous)]

can muggles and wizards ever really have consensual sex because of the inherent power inbalance

Re: even more off topic

[(Anonymous)]

Way to be a bottom feeder by trolling on a troll's comment.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

I don't question the logic you follow, so much as the validity of your premises

Like, by your logic, isn't physical force also might? So by your argument then wouldn't someone who is physically stronger therefore automatically be superior?

To put it another way, I don't think human worth flows from strength in that way.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

Sure you can point to Muggle technology, but there's nothing about it that a magical person couldn't inherently grasp.

But why would they? The reason the magical world is centuries behind the muggle world technologically speaking is because they have no practical motivation to create advanced technology. Why build a car or a train when you can hop on a broom to get where you're going? But the wizards still exploit the vehicles that muggles come up with because if they sat around waiting for it to happen with their own people, Harry's first trip to Hogwarts would have been in a magical horse-drawn coach instead of a train.

If everything was left up to the superiority of magical people, the human race wouldn't really get anywhere. Now, you can argue that with magic, we wouldn't need to get anywhere, if riding the broom works as well as a car, then ride the broom, but don't suppose that because magical people have the capacity to create technology, that they ever would on their own...because apparently they never do. The sheer ease of magic counts as a handicap, to me.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[arcadiaego]

Having skills others don't have =/= being superior to others.

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

I find it a little disturbing that you think "stronger" and "better" are interchangeable. Sorted into Slytherin, were you?

Re: Kind of an off-topic question but...

[(Anonymous)]

I think where you're running into trouble here is that you're not making a clear distinction between capability or power and moral superiority. Yes, magic is might, but might does not equal worth.

Magic may be a desirable trait which Muggles (and Squibs) would understandably envy. But wizards do not possess this additional capability due to any particular virtue on their part. It was an accident of birth, sheer luck of the draw. They could just as easily have been born a Muggle or Squib, and therefore they have nothing in particular to be proud of. Magic (or at least the genetic ability to use magic) is not an accomplishment. They didn't work for it, they didn't even have to ask for it.

It would be like being proud and thinking you're a really awesome person because you happen to have striking blue eyes. Yes, it's a desirable trait and no one would blame you if you were glad for it; but no, you're not better than anybody else, you're simply lucky.

I think possibly a better analogy would be: people born into wealthy families are at a definite advantage over poor people, but this doesn't make them better. They have more and can do more, but none of that means squat in terms of their worth as human beings. A very poor person who is kind and compassionate to others, shares what they do have, and always tries to do what's right, is a better person by far than a rich snob who looks down his nose at people who lack his advantages.

So: Magical people could be forgiven for thinking that they're more fortunate and blessed with advantages than non-magical people, and for being glad that they weren't born Muggles or Squibs. But better? No. Just luckier.