[ SECRET POST #4423 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4423 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 19 secrets from Secret Submission Post #633.
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)]

She was completely justified and frankly, it's realistic that Harry would consider it a betrayal but I don't think there's any way to say that he was right about it.

[(Anonymous)]

I wasn't arguing whether either of them was right or wrong. I was offering it as one example of how their personalities clash because one tends to be controlling of others and the other resists control.

[(Anonymous)]

It just seems like it's sorta weird to phrase it as "controlling" Harry in a situation where she has objectively valid concerns about an attempt on Harry's life?

[(Anonymous)]

Except that going over someone's head in order to achieve the outcome that they don't want because you think is best for them, even if it is in their best interest, is a textbook definition of controlling. If we're only allowed to call people controlling if they're solely doing it to fuck with you, there's a whole lot of people who owe their parents and exes an apology.

[(Anonymous)]

She's 13. That is the kind of thing 13 year olds do. Harry seeing it as a betrayal is also something a 13 year old would do. You can't say that they are going to be the exact same as they are at 13 for the rest of their lives.

[(Anonymous)]

That's not quite where I'm trying to draw the line - the point is not that Hermione thinks that what she's doing is in Harry's best interests. The point is that we know that what Hermione is doing is actually in Harry's best interests, and Harry is actually being very stupid by not agreeing with her in the first place, given the information available at the time and even more so in hindsight. I don't think it's controlling to do something to keep someone out of immediate moral peril.

[(Anonymous)]

If you rob someone of their own free choice, then yes, you are being controlling of them. You can argue that it's for the good, but the point remains that you are robbing them of the chance to make that choice for themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

I accept that there's some literal sense in which that's true, but I don't think that it matches up well with the connotative sense of the word, the sense in which it's synonymous with being domineering or manipulative, and I don't think it's an example of Hermione being unreasonable or doing anything wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

She told Harry to report it. He refused. So she reported it. Do you see how that could be viewed as exercising control over Harry's life when he had expressed his desire for her to stay out of it?

[(Anonymous)]

OK, there's a literal sense in which it is an attempt to control Harry's life, but I don't think it's a pejorative in the way that we're using 'controlling' here. I don't think, you know, if my friend kept me from drinking poison, I don't think it would be justified to call them "controlling" for that.

[(Anonymous)]

Hermione is controlling.

Harry is defiant.

I don't care who is in the right or wrong. Clearly both qualities have their place. I'm just saying the two don't mix well.

[(Anonymous)]

If your friend contrived to have you involuntarily committed because of your alcohol addiction, you would be entirely justified in calling them controlling. They stopped you from drinking the poison, and also they were controlling. It's not an either/or situation.

[(Anonymous)]

If your friend contrived to have you involuntarily committed because of your alcohol addiction, you would be entirely justified in calling them controlling.

That seems like an over-strong analogy...

[(Anonymous)]

Ok. They are THIRTEEN. Hermione did the right thing. Hermione did the thing that we WANT kids to do, go to an adult. Saying that it's controlling sends the opposite message so kids won't do the right thing when it comes to say, abuse or cutting (Self-harm) of another person.

It even played out realistically this way in the book. Hermione told McGonagall about the Firebolt, McGonagall checked it over, it was fine, Harry got the broom back. BUT Harry and Ron socially punished Hermione. Her message, don't go to adults even if things turn okay. AKA Don't be a tattle tale.

So, YEAR FIVE, Umbridge comes along with her Dark Quill and uses it to punish the students. NO ONE TELLS Dumbledore. Not even HERMIONE. Why? Harry asked her not to do so. And she'd already done this "betrayal" thing once, and he punished it for it. So, she didn't do it again even though we KNOW Dumbledore would have stopped it.

It's not controlling behavior. It's called integrity and doing the right thing no matter what. Saying Hermione was 'controlling' is undermining the whole movement against bullying and abuse and those who self-harm so they can get HELP.

[(Anonymous)]

So it's okay to take agency away from bullied and marginalized kids as long as you're very smart and think that you know what's best for them. Got it.

[(Anonymous)]

So to be clear, you're saying that Hermione did the wrong thing in the Firebolt instance? And you think there's never a case where it's necessary or justified to take away someone's agency in their own interest?

[(Anonymous)]

yeah for example if someone us trying to kill or harm themselves you are right to take agency away from them what is your damage lmao sometimes people do stupid shit