Mal

That ol’ chart of mine makes the rounds online periodically and it drives me crazy because it’s frankly not very good. So, I finally got around to remaking it.

I doubt this will get anywhere near as popular, but I wanted to make it.

We are talking about a child, a child grew up in the midset of WWII in an orphanage who's matron was an alcoholic woman. He also came from a long line of incestuous relationships and was a result of Amortentia/Imperius Curse. It is implied that they called doctors and priests before to "treat him" or "exorcise him"

I find it weird that Dumbledore, a man who grew up with a child with magical problems and a flawless mentor to so many people cannot recognize signs of abuse here. Instead of trying to help the kid or making him open up, he silently judges him because he is coming from Slytherin heritage and proceeds to burn his wardrobe to traumatize him even more.

This is not you handle a kid who shows bad behavior and I am sure Dumbledore, who is in his 50s in this scene knows it even better than me. This will only make the kid resent you and be cautioned against you. Dumbledore asks Tom to open up towards him about the Chamber of Secrets and this is precise reason why a fifteen year old avoided Dumbledore to not get in even more trouble.

I believe no children should be treated as their existence is a fault at first, while we look through Tom we need to remember this is not a serial-killer man with genocidal ideas but rather a teenager with mental illness. In my opinion he has either narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder, he has no qualms about using someone to get what he wants because he is raised in that way. There wasn't a comfort area he could take refuge in so he simply created one, he has a weak self-esteem if he makes a 14 year old boy, who doesn't possess even quarter of his power bow before him

1. You are responsible for your own media experience. 

2. There is such a thing as a healthy level of avoidance towards topics that make you feel unwell or even (in a real-life clinical definition of the term) trigger you - but you are the one to actively take care of what you view.

3. Avoiding does not mean policing others.

4. You have no right to tell artists to censor themselves - you may criticize what others do, you may dislike it, that’s fine - but actively asking for censorship when you could easily unfollow or block a person just makes you look incompetent in your use of the internet.

like bro it's nice to have dessert sometimes, but i can't LIVE on that shit. give me every emotional flavour there is. take me on a fucking roller coaster ride. enrich me. teach me. change me. don't bore me with the same moralistic fluff every single goddamn time.

we'd be spiritually, intellectually, culturally, artistically and morally impoverished if that's all we ever got to read. like how do you even know the meaning of morality if you don't know what immorality is? how can you understand what makes a seemingly ordinary person a killer, a criminal or a corrupt politician, if you're given no real insight into the human psyche in all its complexities and darknesses?

how can you learn why nations go to war and why we hurt each other, so that we can learn how not to hurt each other? how can you know yourself when none of the literature around you mirrors you as you really are, and instead portrays humanity as this fake, cookie-cutter, perpetually smiley-faced falsity that you and the people you know are... clearly not? that's some creepy stepford wives bullshit

such "moral" literature is fundamentally lacking in compassion for the human condition, because it refuses to even acknowledge the human condition. i don't think it's "moral" at all; insisting that only sanitised literature (i.e. sanitised ideas of who is human and who deserves to be considered human) goes out to the masses is just people in power wanting to have control over what the rest of us can and cannot have access to, and how we develop.

it's cultural coercive control: the societal equivalent of someone not letting someone else have access to an education, for example, or to resources in general, because god forbid they develop in ways you don't want them to, or think thoughts you don't want them to. doesn't sound very moral, does it? doesn't sound very "free speech", does it?

not to mention that moralistic, warm-and-fuzzy literature is often very normative, and tells us that difference should not be tolerated because everyone has to be the same and meet the same behavioural standards in order to be "good", to be accepted. those of us who are non-normative in some way--minority races, lgbtqia+ people, disabled people, neurodivergent people--are always the first ones to be excluded from these "moral" literatures, because it's the people who are already in power who decide what's "moral" for everybody else. it may not actually feel moral to you or me, or even be as moral as it tries to appear. it's just another power grab.

not to mention that it's just bad art. art that doesn't speak to the human condition is vapid.

literature that's only warm and fuzzy is like a whole amusement park that only has the one slow-ass, cutely painted carousel. i mean those can be fun if they're one of the rides but not if they're the only ride.