[ SECRET POST #3566 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3566 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 83 secrets from Secret Submission Post #510.
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

[(Anonymous)]

So if a principal knows a member of staff is bullying kids, but does nothing, then the principal is still in the clear? Snape is an asshole, I'm not denying it, but Dumbledore kept him in a role that allowed him to bully kids and prevented him from moving on from his own self-destructive mindset. I'm not exonerating Snape, but Dumbledore has a lot of blame in this too.

He also used his position at a school to actively recruit kids into his own private army. For the greater good, but for greater good or not, it is still just as abusive.

[(Anonymous)]

But just so we're clear, the original argument is that Dumbledore screwed up Snape's life, not that Dumbledore should share the blame for the mistreatment of Snape's students. These are completely different charges. In one, the victim is Snape, while in the other, the victims are the people Snape abused through the position that Dumbledore gave him. Let us not move goalposts.

He also used his position at a school to actively recruit kids into his own private army.

Do we even know enough about the first war to say this? How do you know what recruitment for OotP was like?

[(Anonymous)]

NA

"But just so we're clear, the original argument is that Dumbledore screwed up Snape's life"

Considering that one of Snape's peers tried to murder him as a teenager; and we don't see much, if any, punishment of Sirius for that; and Snape was expected to keep quiet about this assault (to keep Lupin's secret, I guess); well I can see why Dumbledore might not come across as the best moral guide or as having Snape's interests at heart. And why Snape might feel, from his experiences as a teenager, that bullying a student is acceptable at Hogwarts. And he's right.

I don't think it's Dumbledore as such. Wizarding culture in general comes across as violent (some of those magical pranks and appropriate-for-children hexes are horrifying), prejudiced, and awful.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, I don't think Dumbledore ever had Snape's interests at heart at all. He used him as a tool against Voldemort. There's no evidence to say he had any kind of personal relationship with young Snape either. In the books, he was shown to be a pretty aloof Headmaster whenever Harry wasn't involved. So if we're going to for the angle that Snape was an at-risk kid and Dumbledore/the system failed him then we might get somewhere, but that "somewhere" isn't going to be as extensive as to say that Dumbledore was the reason Snape's life got screwed up, when his familial situation, his peer relationships, and his life choices as an adult man have all done much, much more toward that end.

And in the end, I'm still going to hold Snape's treatment of his students to a different standard of judgement, regardless of what happened to him as a youth, or what his boss could have done to keep him in line.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough.