LFA says: Okay, Snape is a halfblood. By that definition Snape had every right to call his friend a mudblood because half mixed African (oriented) people call each other rby the n-word to.

No, he doesn't. Because I already stated that while an allegory, blood purity in the wizarding world is not a PERFECT one to one metaphor. Do you know what that means? I'm assuming you don't so I'll explain for you. That means that in the wizarding world, halfbloods aren't seen as an exact mix as we view race. They are seen as a separate race from muggleborns not a perfect mix. This is shown because many halfbloods are viewed as awful for saying the word mudblood. So no, Snape doesn't have the right.

Also dummy, "half mixed African (oriented)" makes literally no sense. African isn't an orientation. And it's not a race either. Half-black. The word you were looking for is half-black.

LFA says: YOU, a JEW, shit on your own ancestors and paint them awful.

No, I don't, you absolute bafoon. You don't seem to understand words properly so let me break it down like I would when talking to a toddler.

Death Eater = Nazi

I say I Hate Death Eater = I Hate Nazi

I Hate Nazi = I Hate Nazi

So how did I paint Jews as awful? I didn't. You're just fucking stupid.

LFA says: Half-bloods can use the word mudblood. Go cry again Zionist bitch. And I thought you would leave, even said you were doing us a favor. But no, you want stay a Rowling fan. I get it. She must be so beautiful and perfect for you. She like you wipes atrocities on her asscrack. Same as you do.

You don't seem to know what a Zionist is. I hate Nazis that's not Zionism. I have never said it's right for Jews to encroach on Palestine. So I'm not a Zionist. You're just stupid and think that screaming Zionism from the rooftops makes it true when you seem to lack a basic understanding of what the word means.

You also can't read because I posted this is an archive and I will update when new people leaving disgusting comments like you. What do you think the word update means? It means I'll still be around to update the blog. You're lack of reading skills isn't my problem.

I've criticized JK Rowling. I'm not a fan. Just because you want to dick-ride Snape doesn't make you calling me her fan true. The only one wiping anything with their asscrack is you considering you can't even put together what Zionism means and then want to also claim that I'm painting my Jewish ancestors as awful. Do me a favor babes, please pick up a book that isn't Harry Potter so you can maybe learn what words mean and how to form a proper argument based in reality.

LFA says: Also You of all people cannot even speak of other when you fuck over your own people. You talk about SGG using Jewish atrocities as manipulating. What the fuck are you doing then? Using Nazism to make a point.

You lack basic comprehension skills, don't you? An allegory isn't manipulating an atrocity. Ask any literature teacher and they'll tell you. But SGG calling me a Zionist with NO PROOF and then constantly trying to tell me that I am degrading Jews and the Holocaust is manipulating an atrocity. Go to school. You'll learn how metaphors and allegories work.

LFA says: Get that fucking STD checked in your cancerous brain and leave the fandom because you bring nothing but hate to it anyway, and then act like a whining whorish slut when people tell you "you can't use Nazism" like some tantrum throwing toddler.

Ah, yes, this is so mature of you. So now that you have lost and have no real points, you just resort to saying I have an STD and a cancerous brain. You're a loser. A pathetic loser.

And based on you constantly calling me a whore, a slut, and having STD, I'm going to guess that you were the anons from earlier. Weren't you? And considering you have no other posts or likes on your blog and seem to be really defensive of SGG, I'm guessing this is SGG. Isn't it? Because you actively state on your About Me in your pinned post that you like to make sock accounts to keep harassing people who block you if you cuss them out. Is this one of those sock accounts?

And I'm assuming that despite the fact I haven't block you, this sock account was made so you could look like someone was on your side because you couldn't explain the awful words you wrote and how it makes you look like a horrible human being.

Also, you're the one calling me a whore and a slut. I think you're the tantrum throwing toddler.

PSA to the rational Snape Stans: These people walk among you and are crazy.

LFA says: They also didn't say Nazism is a fanmade thing. But that someone CHOSE to use JKR words is a JKR fan. Because, you appreciate her words so much to commit a whole blog to her ideal view on of her rape creation to Hitler.

Okay this is how I know you have no intelligence. I never said Nazism was a fanmade thing. I never said that SGG said Nazism was a fanmade thing. If you knew how to read, you would know that.

And what the fuck does "ideal view on of her rape creation to Hitler" mean? Seriously. You strung together random words to appear like you can speak but that sentence makes no sense.

LFA says: But will a slut get that? No, they're too busy jumping on cocks to think logically. Rowling fans aren't that developed either I guess.

It's laughable to think you have a developed brain when your entire argument consisted of lies, wrong sentence structure, and calling me a whore. You're just a dumb pathetic loser.

Side note: Um being a slut has nothing to do with intelligence. Clearly a dumb fuck like you doesn't know that. BUT, to enlighten you, being a slut has to do with your libido while being intelligent and developed has to do with your brain.

SGG said: But sure. Rowling fan over here thinks, a noseless fuck with identity issues born from rape written by a woman that chose homosexual aids as the ideal example for Lycanthrope, subtly hinting homosexuals are predators since Greyback focuses on children. This Rowling fan chose Rowling as her ideal diva to repeat her words. I don't expect anything else though.

I’m not a Rowling fan. I’ve criticized her openly for her bigotry. Acknowledging a basic metaphor doesn’t make me a “Rowling fan,” it just proves I know how allegory works. SGG clearly doesn’t.

Lycanthropy isn’t “subtly hinting homosexuals are predators.” If that were the case, Remus — a werewolf himself — would also be written as a predator, and he’s not. The allegory is obvious: lycanthropy reflects the AIDS crisis and the wrongful discrimination gay men faced. This is the kind of thing you’d learn in middle school lit class.

Rowling isn’t my “ideal diva.” That’s just SGG being a dumb bitch who can’t separate my literary analysis from their personal delusion.

SGG said: If you're a Jew and support this comparison, you must be a Zionist. Even Jews wouldn't stoop as low as to compare a bullshit fictional story with mid class villains to genocides. So, Im going with that you're not Jewish since your source is "trust me bro" and I for a fact don't trust anything out of what you call a brain.

Now I’m a Zionist? Are you kidding me? What the actual fuck is wrong with you. Millions of Palestinians are dying, and you throw out “Zionist” like it’s some gotcha insult.

And let’s be clear: my source isn’t “trust me bro.” It’s my birth. I don’t owe you a DNA test or a birth certificate to prove I’m Jewish, you dumb cunt. By your own logic, I could say I don’t believe you’re Indian, or that you grew up in the Netherlands, or that you were in foster care. See how stupid that is?

You crossed a line. You’re not just wrong about allegory, you’re a sick human being for throwing Zionism around like that. Don't you ever dare repeat that about me again or your entire account will be reported so quick. Don't try me. I don't fucking play about Zionism and Palestine, you goddamn disgusting person.

SGG said: By your definition then: LGBTQ is Nazi (posts a bunch of screenshots of JK Rowling on Twitter from 2025 being a bigot) By your definition then: homosexuals carry a virus by default. JKR said so anyway, right? Wonder what your rebuttal is there you cherry picking shit.

Rowling’s book from 2007 using Death Eaters as a Nazi allegory has nothing to do with her bigoted ways now. Here’s another thought for the bitch who clearly didn’t pass a literature class: allegories don’t work backwards. Her calling LGBTQ people Death Eaters on Twitter in 2025 doesn’t mean “LGBTQ = Nazis.” That’s not how allegory works — that’s day one of Lit 101.

And frankly? I’d rather be a “cherry-picking shit” than a hostile bully who lies about me being a Zionist or justifying SA. You’re clearly still the same bully with anger issues you bragged about in your own bio — you never actually grew up, you just redirected it into Snape stan tirades.

SGG said: Also, Snape is not a racist: - lives amongst muggles WILLINGLY - corrects a painting for the she of word mudblood - ignites Bellatrix her suspicion because ehe wasn't the same as other Death Eaters. - changed sides for a muggleborn friend Soooo, idk what youre fucking talking about. But anyway.

“Snape isn’t racist” — girl, be serious.

Living among Muggles doesn’t make you not racist. White supremacists live among Black people every day. That’s not the flex you think it is.

Correcting a painting? He still used “Mudblood” against Lily and other muggleborns for literal years. One correction doesn’t erase years of slurs.

Bellatrix’s suspicion isn’t proof he wasn’t racist, it’s proof he was playing both sides. Did you even read the books or were your eyes closed and you absorbed it through osmosis?

“Changed sides for a muggleborn friend”? No, he changed sides for Lily, one woman he was obsessed with. He didn’t suddenly become pro-Muggleborn.

Snape is the definition of “I’ll make an exception for the one person I like.” That’s not anti-racism. That’s not even neutrality. That’s still racism.

SGG said: Isn't doing all this progress in your Nazi world? Or is actively living amongst poor muggles that you swear he hates, just another cherry picking thing. And if you do compare "racism" to nicknames. Isn't Snape a halfblood? He has full access to that word. I don't see you telling mixed dark skinned people to not use the n-word. Or do you tell them that too? Do you tell colored people to not use the n-word. I was raised with mixed people, l am family with mixed people. I am family with half black people..... Are they suddenly racist for using that n-word or was Lily just an overreactive bitch that smiled at his sexual assault beforehand and betraying Severus? In a COMPLETELY pure memory shown from HARRY POTTER his view.

First of all, to the idiot in the back of the classroom: the KKK lives near Black people all the time. Proximity doesn’t cancel out racism. That’s not cherry picking — that’s the real world.

Second, blood purity in Harry Potter isn’t a perfect metaphor for real-world race, but it’s still about racism and bigotry. And let’s be very clear: in the HP world, half-bloods aren’t treated like mixed-race people. They’re treated as a completely separate category from Muggleborns. Stop twisting canon to excuse Snape’s racism.

Third, saying “I’m family with half Black people” is meaningless. You’re not Black. You’re not half-Black. That doesn’t give you the authority to use us as your shield for your disgusting argument.

And fourth, you said Lily was “overreactive” for walking away when Snape called her a slur. Let’s unpack what you’re really saying there: you think I’d be overreacting if someone called me a n****r and I stopped being friends with them. That’s not just wrong — that’s racist. Don’t deny it. Own it.

Let’s set the record straight with the actual canon text, since you clearly can’t read:

“Many people in the small crowd watching cheered. Sirius, James, and Wormtail roared with laughter. Lily, whose furious expression had twitched for an instant as though she was going to smile, said, ‘Let him down!’ … ‘LEAVE HIM ALONE!’ Lily shouted. She had her own wand out now.”

So no, Lily did not “smile at his assault.” Snape thought it looked like she might, for a split second — and instead of giving her the benefit of the doubt, he turned around and called her a slur. Lily was actively defending him, wand out, demanding James and Sirius leave him alone.

She didn’t “betray him.” She was on his side, and he spat in her face with racism. That’s what actually happened.

SGG said: You'd deserve to be mocked fake Jew, idk what to tell you. 😭. Who the fuck gets it in their bright mind to compare genocide with fiction. It's not like people take the Rick and Morty episode of Christianity and Easter seriously. The episode where the Easter bunny was actually a virus out to kill all people and enslave them into an eternal orgy until they are wiped out. And other alien figures based off the arch angels tried killing that virus. I don't suddenly see people going ballistic about that. Fucking hell, you treat Harry Potter like a freaking Bible. Are you sure you're Jew? You sound like a devil, downplaying reality to something that is simply fat-phobic, homophobic, racist, and completely lookism based. Nothing even in the book resembles Nazism. Trying to take over the world, to make space for your own race and either erase or enslave the conquered is basically every war ever. British empire did it. Native Americans did it. Vikings did it. Mongols did it. Indians did it. Romans did it. The Japanese Empire did it. I don't fucking know why your fucking mind is focused on specifically Nazi. But I suppose someone that preaches a racist her words must know a thing or two for belonging in her fangroup.

So now I’m a “fake Jew”? You don’t know me, you don’t know my life, and you sure as hell don’t get to dictate my identity. That’s mine. You crossed the line the moment you said it, and every word after only exposed how unhinged your hostility really is.

And your “who compares genocide with fiction??” tantrum just proves you never made it past kindergarten reading. Since literature class was invented, allegory has existed. Authors have drawn comparisons between real-world atrocities and fictional villains for centuries. That’s not me “treating Harry Potter like a Bible” — that’s literally how critical reading works. I'm sorry you don't seem to know that. J.K. Rowling herself said the Death Eaters were modeled on Nazis. You can stomp and scream, but that fact remains.

And dragging Rick & Morty into this? Please. An Easter Bunny sex virus has nothing to do with this discussion — you’re just flinging nonsense at the wall because you have no actual point.

You accuse me of “sounding like the devil,” but let’s be real: you’re the one calling people “Zionists,” mocking identities, and acting like pointing out racism is evil. If anything, that’s devil behavior.

And your final claim? That “nothing in the book resembles Nazism” because “every war ever” involved conquest? That’s not just historically ignorant — it’s offensive. Genocide isn’t “just another war.” And by the way, learn the difference between war and genocide. Because yeah, mowing down an entire group just for their identity no matter the reason is a genocide. Dumbass.

SGG said: And I stand by what I said, neo Nazi is still NOT what you should have said. I just know the actual victims that died are turning in their graves to have been reduced to word said by a racist woman that doesn't give a fuck or two about Jews, nor Blacks nor Asians because her noseless villain wasn't evil enough. Love how you still couldn't defy my answer though.

Yes, neo-Nazi is absolutely the correct term. That’s what the Death Eaters are modeled after — this isn’t me inventing something out of thin air, it’s the author’s own allegory, widely recognized in literary analysis. What’s not clicking for you?

And even if you personally dislike the term, explain to me how that justifies you calling me a fake Jew and a Zionist. It doesn’t. It never will. That’s you being a vile, disgusting human being.

Your line about “victims turning in their graves” is pure deflection. What does Rowling being a bigot now have to do with me, or with your decision to attack my identity? Nothing. Plenty of books have been written by people who stood against their own messages.

SGG said: If you did, it wouldn't surprise me. Rowling fan thinking they're higher than the law, a lawyer or a dictionary isn't new. 😂. But I bet you're only going to focus on how I called you, awh. How sad. No real answers just focusing on name calling. You deserve that. You deserved to be mocked and ridiculed, they're probably synonyms of each other. But you know what I mean. Harry Potter is not Nazism. They don't hold memorials for harry Potter every year. They don't interview the loss of harry Potter characters during the 2nd ww. Harry potter pictures and names aren't carved into statues to remember the day by. Harry potter didn't have D-Day. Harry Potter didn't involve all continents for a fight. Harry potter villains didn't believe in Hitler or Arian race superiority.

First off, I’m not a Rowling fan. I’ve criticized her repeatedly, so inventing that as your opening line is just you dodging the point. Same with the “higher than the law” and “lawyer/dictionary” nonsense — none of that was ever part of my argument. You made it up because you don’t have an actual rebuttal.

And then you say I “deserve to be mocked”? Interesting coming from the same person who claimed in their About Me that they “grew out of being a bully.” This is you proving you didn’t. At least if you’re going to posture like that, spell Aryan correctly so you don’t look sloppy while trying to look superior.

Let me make this crystal clear: I never said “Harry Potter is Nazism.” I said the Death Eaters are modeled on Nazis. That’s basic allegory 101 and something literary critics have acknowledged for years. Allegories don’t require one-to-one replicas. You don’t test them by asking if Voldemort believed in Hitler. You test them by looking at the shared ideology and behaviors — blood purity, eugenics logic, slurs, disappearances, state terror, extermination of “impure” groups. That is the Death Eaters’ entire blueprint. That’s why the analogy exists.

So no, the lack of D-Day statues for Harry Potter doesn’t “disprove” the comparison. It just shows you don’t understand how allegory works. And when you fall back on “you deserve to be mocked,” it just confirms what’s been clear from the start: you’re still the bully you swore you outgrew.

SGG said: Many joined the DE because they were ALREADY shunned by ministry aka wizarding society. Remus nearly starves to death because he's a lycan. His existence alone gives him starvation. How is that fair to him? He was a wet blanket all along. But not every lycan is like him thus join Voldemort for a better future. Half-bloods, muggleborns and muggles weren't well liked by ministry. There is a whole fricking war about them with fantastic beasts. Aside that show, not many half-bloods are known. Snape FALLS in that category, look at how he is treated. Ministry also didn't give two fucks about centaurs. Treating them like lesser humans. Ministry also don't give a shit about house elves, basically slaves. If anything is racist, it's the ministry, and not DE that gave hope to the less likeable people to make a future of themselves in an already prejudiced society with the cards stacked against them. Will a Rowling fan be reasoned with though? No, they can focus on the stuff completely irrelevant in the post such as Rowling fan (even though you preaches her words).

Let’s get one thing clear: joining a racist, murderous organization is not “hope.” It’s hate dressed up as power. You’re actually arguing that if someone feels shunned, it’s understandable for them to join the wizarding equivalent of the KKK — and somehow, the real racism lies with the people who didn’t welcome them. That’s not just bad logic, it’s disturbing.

The Ministry is corrupt, sure. But the Ministry isn’t “all of wizarding society.” That’s basic common sense. Something you clearly lack.

And saying the Death Eaters gave “hope to less likeable people”? That’s one of the most frightening things I’ve read in this whole mess. By that logic, if a teenager joins a Neo-Nazi gang because they’re lonely, you’re fine with it. That’s the argument you’re making. You don’t realize how horrifying that sounds, because you’re too busy trying to dick-ride Snape at all costs.

No one’s saying the Ministry wasn’t prejudiced. I literally never wrote that so you're barking at the wall. But excusing Voldemort’s followers as if they were freedom fighters is a racist rewrite of the text. And the fact you can’t see that? That tells me exactly where your values lie.

SGG said: Well, that's what you get for calling fictional people a nazi. Anyway, good riddance I guess. Have better luck in a new fandom. I will be honest, you write well, only wished you didn't drag reality into fictional world like JKR did.

You don’t ever need to come near my new blog. Don’t read my work, don’t compliment it, don’t even lurk. You crossed a line when you called me a fake Jew and a Zionist — that’s not fandom discourse, that’s disgusting.

And let’s be clear: I didn’t “drag reality into fiction.” I made the most basic, middle-school level literary observation. Comparing Death Eaters to Nazis is a standard analysis. It’s the kind of thing that gets taught in classrooms around the world. You’re just angry because your baby boy Snape chose to join a group written as an allegory for Nazis and neo-Nazis. That’s not me projecting reality onto fiction, that’s the fiction itself. Go back to school and maybe learn how to critically read.

If you can’t handle that, it’s not my problem. But don’t twist it into something it isn’t. Don’t smear me with lies about my identity just because you hate what the text actually says.

SGG said: Seeing Nazism in harry Potter is a big no no in general. There is a reason people spit on for example, Donald Duck doing the Hitler greet back in the 40's or something..... It's discriminating, the same way how Asians and Africans were represented through cartoonish fictional media.

Death Eaters are an allegory for Nazis — that’s a fact and it’s taught as basic literary analysis. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you clever, it makes you willfully ignorant.

And your Donald Duck example? Completely irrelevant. People condemned that cartoon because it showed a Nazi salute, not because “fictional characters can’t reference Nazis.” You’re just grabbing random comparisons out of thin air, the same way you’ve thrown around calling me a fake Jew and a Zionist.

It’s not me dragging reality into fiction. It’s you refusing to accept the most straightforward metaphor in the series.

SGG said: But hey, not every chooses to be progressive. Like you and JKR herself. People can have opinions but if it's about whitewashing bullies and involving Nazism while whitewashing bullies that actually did discriminating stuff, you cma leave. Leave the fandom if you want. Create a new blog if you want. But imagine your child starving to death as you dress up to sleep with an SS soldier when your husband was recently gassed, you fear your child would end up being tied and raped too.

You really think this makes you sound “progressive”? Please. That grotesque hypothetical you wrote — “imagine your child starving to death as you dress up to sleep with an SS soldier when your husband was recently gassed, you fear your child would end up being tied and raped too” — is beyond disgusting. Who the fuck says that shit?

No one in this debate ever said anything that would justify you writing something like that. You didn’t make a point; you exposed just how warped and hostile you are. You didn’t “grow out of being a bully,” you grew into a sick, aggressive person who thinks exploiting atrocities for cheap insults is fair game.

SGG said: All that, for someone to say "See this? This man that feared dying so tried taking over the world and got uglier as time progressed, he's like Hitler. The muggles are like you."

You clearly don’t know how to read, or you’ve never stepped into a basic literature class. Voldemort ordering the murder of Muggles because they’re Muggles is racism. Persecuting Muggleborns because they’re Muggleborn is racism. That’s not complicated — it’s the foundation of the Death Eaters’ ideology.

So yes, Voldemort functions as an allegory for Hitler. That doesn’t come from “fangirls” or “Rowling stans”; it comes straight from how the text is written and how allegory works.

You’re so busy trying to defend Snape at any cost that you’ll twist yourself into nonsense, hoping your hostility scares people away from responding. It doesn’t work here. You picked the wrong one today.

SGG said: See that? That's utter nonsense. If anything, you aren't pro-victim. You are pro-abuser and it shows by whitewashing bullies and comparing Hitler to Tom Riddle. I have no idea what is going on up there of your head, but I can say it isn't anything good 😭.

The irony here is staggering. You — the same person who called me a Zionist out of nowhere, who openly bragged on your own blog about making sock accounts to keep harassing people who block you, and who has argued that joining the Death Eaters wasn’t about racism but about “loneliness” — now want to claim that I’m the one with “nothing good” going on in my head? No. Look in the mirror.

And let’s be clear: calling out Snape’s racism isn’t “pro-abuser.” It’s refusing to erase the harm he caused to others. What is pro-abuser is your constant whitewashing of Snape’s choices and your willingness to bend over backwards to excuse a racist organization as if it were a misunderstood support group.

SGG said: So thank you for choosing to be inactive for a while. Everything of this would be settled down if you simply apologize for choosing Nazism as your go to group for fictional people. As many said, it is a terrorist cult that grooms children into their army, a group not taken seriously by the ministry itself until it was too late.

Apologize? After everything you’ve said to me? No. Bitch, let’s get this straight: you called me a fake Jew, you called me a Zionist, and you accused me of supporting sexual abuse. You don’t get to spew that level of filth and then turn around demanding an apology from me for recognizing the most basic allegory in the books. Go to every layer of hell that exist. Telling me to apologize after the filthy shit that you typed.

SGG said: But you probably won't react nor read this. Good for you, takes a special kind of person to rather be blind than face truth. So, if you do become active, either not a Rowling fan, or a different fandom.

You were hoping I wouldn’t respond, weren’t you? Because you know exactly how foul and baseless your accusations were, and you don’t want anyone else to see them addressed. Not only are you a liar, you’re a disgusting and despicable human being. Stay away from my new blog — I don’t want to see you there, not now, not ever.

SGG said: I dare a lot of things because you act like one. If my people were massacred, I wouldn't go dilly dally compare my wronged ancestors to some noseless bald thing. You degrade your own people. You paint a bad image of your own people. Would your family be even fucking proud of you? No. If you told your family that you compare ww2 genocide camps to Harry Potter, they would look at you as if you were insane. I just know that 😂. I've heard of selling out your own people, but you're a whole new breed. Degrading your own people. Claims it isn't a Zionist but is Zionist shaped. 😭. Now you don't like a genocide atrocity pulled into fictional banter do you, cherry picking asshole.

First of all, I said “how dare you call me a Zionist” — and your response was “because you act like one.” Then, in the same breath, you went off about “dilly dallying” and “degrading my people.” That isn’t Zionism. You don’t even know what the word means, yet you’re throwing it at me as if it’s some gotcha. That alone shows how unserious and reckless you are.

And for the record: my family wouldn’t blink at the Death Eaters being an allegory for Nazis — because it is a basic allegory, one that has been acknowledged and discussed since the books were first written. It’s not new, it’s not shocking, it’s not some “degradation of my people.” It’s called literary analysis. You would know that if you had ever attended your literature classes. Other works of fiction use the same allegory, and nobody with sense calls it offensive.

What is offensive is you tossing around accusations about my identity, laughing emojis tacked on as if the Holocaust is just material for you to score petty Snape-defense points.

“Selling out my own people”? “Zionist-shaped”? What does that even mean? You’re just stringing together buzzwords hoping they’ll stick. You’ve accused me of being a fake Jew, a Zionist, a “Zionist-shaped” something-or-other — all while ignoring that the only point I’ve made is the very basic, well-documented allegory between Death Eaters and Nazis. That’s not “selling out,” that’s recognizing a piece of literary design that countless critics, teachers, and readers have acknowledged for decades.

And no, pointing out an allegory is not “pulling genocide into fictional banter.” That’s not cherry-picking — it’s literally how allegory works. What is cherry-picking is what you’re doing: yanking words out of context, twisting them into accusations, and slapping laughing emojis on top as if identity-based slander is a punchline.

SGG said: Lol, involving others when the person adores to involve Hitler, as soldiers and Nazism into their conversations to worsen the idea of DE so they win the conversation and shut down all and every argument previously made with "I said this about Nazi, and they protect Nazi." Or my all time favourite "I can't believe people love Nazi Snape." 😂 But now that they're compared to a Zionist for degrading her own people their death, hardships, racism, like a fucking bitch. Involving genocide over a fictional books.... suddenly, isn't so fun. Irony. Anyway, your opinions mean shit really. But I do feel bad, all alone, talking to moots or something but all you have were screenshots and a timeline to desperately make your nazi-snape idea take off. 🥺 Poor you.

The fact that you would ever insinuate I “adore Hitler” is one of the nastiest, most deranged things I’ve seen in this fandom mess. Let’s do basic logic: if I say the Death Eaters are Nazis, and I say I don’t like the Death Eaters, then obviously I don’t like Nazis or Hitler. You twisting that into me “adoring” Hitler is not only vile, it’s laughably stupid.

And once again, you throw around words you don’t understand. Zionism is the belief in the establishment and support of a Jewish state in Israel. That has nothing to do with your nonsense about “degrading your own people.” You call me a Zionist without even knowing what the word means — because it sounds inflammatory, and that’s all you care about.

Your opinions aren’t truth, they’re garbage. And no, I’m not “all alone.” I don’t share what my moots have said in my inbox or DMs because frankly, I don’t trust you not to go harass them too. Based on your own words, that’s exactly the kind of hostile and unstable behavior you’d engage in. So why would I ever throw my moots to horrible people like you? Nope, that's staying in the DMs so you don't go harass them or find them.

As for your little pity jab about screenshots and timelines: yes, I documented everything. Because unlike you, I actually care about truth and accuracy, not throwing random insults and emojis around to drown out the fact that you have no argument and are still the bully you claim you grew up from.

SGG said: Yeah, I am a bully because I compare Nazism to fictional people. Makes sense. That's why you sound like a Zionist. They make their own people look bad and degrade an entire race. Sorry your mind can't commune that but that's more of a problem you should relay to your therapist.

No, you’re a bully because you called me a Zionist. And you’re still too uneducated to even use the word correctly. You throw words around like weapons without knowing their meaning like you're a damn toddler.

If anything, you’re the one who needs to sit with a therapist and maybe go back to school, because this isn’t normal behavior.

SGG said: Tell them: So, I read this book. Called Harry Potter. And JKR, that woman that hates other races and LGBTQ said that DE is Nazism. And, I as a Jew think that my people are low enough to be compared to this magical book. And whenever someone online tells me that I cannot compare Nazism to magic people, I get angry and make screenshots to a none existent crowd without involving the people apparent on Tumblr and call them out for not seeing Snape as the Nazi SS soldier that he is, who locked up Jews and gassed the Jews. Am I in the wrong?

Twisting my words into this grotesque caricature only shows how disgusting your tactics are. You don’t understand how allegory works — and instead of admitting that, you weaponize the Holocaust as some kind of “gotcha.” That’s vile.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the Death Eaters are an allegory for Nazis. That’s not me “lowering” Jewish people, that’s how literature works. It's not my fault you're too stupid to know how literary tools and analysis works. Allegories are comparisons, not equivalences. Pretending I claimed otherwise is lying.

Section: Levicorpus ≠ Justification

My words:

“And he doesn’t take off Severus’ underwear. The text mentions that after taking off his trousers you can see grey underpants. When it says pants, it still means trousers not the common use of pants the way most British people say it. Most because certain parts of the UK don’t, fun fact. And again, Snape came up with the spell. It’s oh so convenient that we only see James use the spell against him but not Snape using it against other people to what we can assume is the same extent as James.”

Clarifying the text: In my U.S. edition, I interpreted pants meant trousers, not underwear as how we refer to it in the US. I was pointing out that Snape’s underwear wasn’t removed in the scene. That’s not me excusing anything but simply pointing out what I thought was a text misreading of if the underwear vs pants debate.

Exposing double standards: Snape invented the spell. If people condemn James for using it, they need to acknowledge Snape’s role too.

Correcting a text detail ≠ excusing harassment.

Holding Snape accountable for his role as inventor ≠ defending James.

Section: Snape’s Worst Memory

My words:

“This is more speculation than overt in text but I don't think James did take off Snape's underwear during the second Levicorpus in Snape's Worst Memory. … That doesn't make it right by any means, I'm not saying that. But I think it's not concrete that James ever did that. … The Hogwarts uniforms are black robes and point hats. … So if Snape or any other student was using Levicorpus, unless they were wearing something underneath their robes, they all would have been exposed like Severus was in his Worst Memory. That makes literally everyone look bad and is actually problematic of all the characters. And means Snape invented the spell knowing it would do this and did it to people. And then all the other students did. They'd all be shitty. … This also does lend some credibility to people saying Snape's Worst Memory was the part where he called Lily a mudblood not the part about being Levicorpused.”

I wasn’t excusing James. I was noting that the text leaves the underwear question ambiguous, especially across editions/translations.

I was pointing out a broader issue: if Levicorpus exposes people, then everyone who used it (including Snape, its inventor) is complicit in the same humiliation. And they would all be shitty people for participating in essentially an SA/SH spell.

I was raising the possibility that the true trauma of the memory — the reason Harry later fixates on it — is Snape’s use of the slur against Lily, not just the jinx itself.

So:

Textual analysis ≠ excusing harm.

Acknowledging ambiguity in canon ≠ saying harassment is okay.

Pointing out Snape’s own complicity isn’t “belittling” SA — it’s refusing to pretend he’s innocent.

Section: TMF Plants the SA Narrative

TMF’s words (first reply to me ever):

“The SA issue has become increasingly ridiculous in recent years. I firmly believe that if Snape had been a girl, no one would have invalidated what he went through. The vigor with which some fans try to argue that attempting to undress someone isn't SA scares me. Just like blaming the victim, Levicorpus doesn't strip people naked, but simply lifts them by the ankle. It's not an evil spell; magic is a tool, and it depends on how it's used. Between James and Snape, the only one who uses Levicorpus to undress someone is James, so the fact that Snape created the spell proves nothing.”

Why this matters:

This was their opening move — before quoting anything I said, before addressing my points.

That means the smear wasn’t a misunderstanding of my words. It was a narrative they decided to foreground and control.

The smear inside this statement:

They frame the debate as “invalidating” Snape’s victimhood → setting me up as a villain before I’ve even spoken.

They claim “the vigor with which some fans argue this isn’t SA scares me” → preemptively pathologizing disagreement.

They insist “Snape invented it, but that proves nothing” → already denying the accountability point I hadn’t even raised yet.

Rebuttal:

They mischaracterized “arguing about canon language and context” as “invalidating SA.” That’s dishonest framing.

They built their argument on hypotheticals (“if Snape were a girl”) instead of canon, which only inflames the debate and has nothing to do with what I’d actually written.

Conclusion for this section: From the very first reply, TMF set the stage: Every later smear about me “justifying SA” grows from this opening move.

Section: The Misquote & Translation Pivot

What I wrote (part of a larger post):

“And he doesn’t take off Severus’ underwear. The text mentions that after taking off his trousers you can see grey underpants. When it says pants, it still means trousers not the common use of pants the way most British people say it. … And again, Snape came up with the spell.”

What TMF quoted:

“And he doesn’t take off Severus’ underwear.”

TMF’s reply:

“You know, there's a long discussion about this that can certainly create confusion, especially due to translations. I'm Italian, and in my text, it explicitly says ‘underpants’ (mutande in Italian)… Snape was hanging upside down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of graying underpants. So no, he's not wearing any pants, James actually threatens to take off his underwear… imagine if Snape had been a girl…”

Hypothetical inflation: They invoke the “if Snape were a girl” argument again, which drags the discussion further away from canon text (and translation comparisons) and into hypotheticals designed to inflame.

Rebuttal:

My point was about consistency — if you treat Levicorpus as harassment, you can’t exempt Snape. Translation quirks don’t change that.

Focusing on a U.S. vs U.K. wording issue isn’t denial. It’s trying to get canon clarification.

Section: The Collapse Into Projection

What I wrote:

“And to anyone that recognizes Snape being friends with the baby Death Eaters but saying that we don’t know if he was a bully… It’s giving, ‘I can excuse racism but animal cruelty is where I draw the line.’”

What TMF replied with:

“In fact, that’s exactly what the Marauders Stans do: they excuse years of serious bullying, calling Snape Snivellus even as an adult, attempted m**er, throwing Snape to the ground, suffocating him with soap, stripping him in public, making themselves look like heroes, lying but being horribly offended because Snape uses a Slur.”

The tactic:

Projection: I never said “Snape stans” or “Marauders stans” in this quote they pulled of me. I said “anyone.” TMF projected their own ongoing fight with Marauders stans onto me, as if I were part of that old argument.

Straw manning: They attribute to me things I never said (excusing murder, excusing stripping, excusing soap). I believe this is the origin point of the false narrative that I “belittle” SA.

Rebuttal:

My actual point: people excusing Snape’s racism while condemning other behavior are showing hypocrisy.

TMF’s twist: I supposedly excuse Marauders’ worst actions while condemning Snape’s slurs because that's what Marauders Stans do. Except That’s not what I said.

This is the moment, I believe, where TMF stopped debating me and started debating their imagined “Snater enemy.”

Section: Following TMF’s Logic

The words of TMF's I quoted (in their first reply):

“Just like blaming the victim, Levicorpus doesn’t strip people naked, but simply lifts them by the ankle.”

My response:

“There isn’t proof Levicorpus was only designed to dangle the ankles and not take off underwear… you kind of answer that. … So that very logic means Snape created a spell that would lift people by their ankles causing their robes to fall down and panties be exposed because no wizards wear trousers. Therefore, Snape did in fact create an SA spell. So even with a translation confusion on my end, Snape still created an SA spell by your own logic and explanation. James didn’t make the spell. James didn’t modify the spell. Snape = creator of humiliation SA spell. Everyone at Hogwarts then uses humiliation SA spell after he uses it and it gets popular.”

I was using TMF’s own premise — no trousers, robes fall, underwear exposed — and following it to its logical conclusion: Snape invented a spell that humiliates people by exposing them. That’s not an excuse for James. That’s accountability for Snape. So it isn't an excuse for SA. It's accountability for it.

The smear that followed: TMF and OHPF later claimed I was “belittling” or “justifying” SA. But this response shows the opposite: I was arguing the spell itself is sexual harassment by design, and therefore Snape, as its inventor, is culpable as well.

Rebuttal:

Holding Snape responsible ≠ excusing James.

Showing how the spell itself is humiliating ≠ minimizing harassment.

Their refusal to grapple with this argument — and instead smear me — is why the SA narrative spiraled.

Conclusion for this section: Even when I followed TMF’s own words to their logical end, they chose not to engage with the accountability piece. Instead, they twisted my argument into a lie.

Section: Canon Clarification ≠ Excuse

The words of TMF's I quoted:

“In fact, that’s exactly what the Marauders Stans do: they excuse years of serious bullying, calling Snape Snivellus even as an adult, attempted m**er, throwing Snape to the ground, suffocating him with soap, stripping him in public, making themselves look like heroes, lying but being horribly offended because Snape uses a Slur.”*

My response:

“‘Stripping him in public’ — Snape created that spell (sidenote, it was an awful threat disgusting but if we care about canon so much then James never did the underwear removal not an excuse but feels like that needs to be clarified with how this post is going).”

Clarifying canon: James didn’t remove underwear in the text. That's it. That's all I said. I even state "not an excuse" but we should clarify his threat vs his action.

Accountability: Snape invented the spell that caused the humiliation. If the act is SA, then Snape is complicit by design.

Rebuttal:

Saying “this was awful and disgusting, but canon never shows underwear removal” isn’t justification — it’s sticking to the facts.

Naming Snape as the inventor of the spell isn’t absolving James — it’s exposing Snape’s own role.

Section: The Attempt to Tie Me to SA

TMF’s words (Second Response Post):

“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 Aubrey) 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?”

What I actually said in my original post:

On Levicorpus: I noted that in my U.S. edition, “pants” meant trousers, so I originally thought James didn’t expose Snape’s underwear. I now know the U.S. translation still kept the U.K. use of “pants,” meaning underwear. That’s not justification — that’s a translation clarification.

On bullying: I never said James and Sirius “weren’t real bullies.” I said their bullying wasn’t because they were rich. Canon shows their fights with Snape were fueled by arrogance and his Dark Arts alignment, not class status.

On Snape vs. James: I said canon explicitly frames them as “at each other’s throats,” which means it wasn’t one-sided. That’s not denying James and Sirius were mean to Snape — it’s refusing to flatten the dynamic into Snape = innocent victim.

On racism: My central point was and remains that I don’t defend Snape because of his racist actions.

The tactic: TMF twisted these clarifications into:

Me supposedly saying “public stripping” doesn't count as real bullying.

Me supposedly downplaying or justifying SA.

Rebuttal:

Attempting to correct a translation ≠ excusing harassment.

Saying “both sides attacked each other” ≠ saying “attempted SA isn’t bullying.”

Nothing in my original post remotely justifies or minimizes SA.

Section: The Knife Defense

My words:

“…So that very logic means Snape created a spell that would lift people by their ankles causing their robes to fall down and panties be exposed because no wizards wear trousers. Therefore, Snape did in fact create an SA spell. So even with a translation confusion on my end, Snape still created an SA spell by your own logic and explanation. James didn’t make the spell. James didn’t modify the spell.”

TMF’s reply:

“So I guess the official guides describing spell effects don’t matter to you… Levicorpus lifts you by the ankle, stop, that’s its effect. How you use it is up to you (hence my example with the knife). 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… James intended to undress Snape in public, and this is an SA.”

The tactic:

Moving goalposts: They insist the spell is neutral, like a knife, and its humiliation effect is only about user choice. But robes falling = exposure is a baked-in effect of the spell, not an optional add-on.

Twist of my logic: They suggest I said “inventing a spell is worse than using it.” I didn’t. I said if Levicorpus = SA, then the inventor is also responsible.

Why this matters:

By this point, TMF had fully abandoned engaging with my actual argument. Instead of facing Snape’s accountability, they reframed me as the irrational one — “saying invention is worse than use.”

This set the stage for others to leap in and claim outright that I was “justifying James” because of a false binary they invented: either Snape = blameless inventor or me = SA justifier.

Rebuttal:

A spell that inherently exposes people is not a “neutral knife.” It is a humiliation tool by design. If something dangles people upside down then they all would inherently be exposed when gravity works on their clothes (robes, skirts, dresses, loose pants that can fall all the way down).

My point was not “inventing is worse than using.” My point was accountability has to apply to both — inventor and users.

Section: The Sarcasm They Pretended Not to See

What I wrote (in full):

“There isn’t proof Levicorpus was only designed to dangle the ankles and not take off underwear. Because then please tell me how did James get Snape’s trousers and underwear off without saying a second spell? … So adding all those factors together, tell me how would it be possible to magically remove Snape’s underwear if Levicorpus as a single spell only dangles by the ankles…”

What TMF chose to isolate:

“There isn’t proof Levicorpus was only designed to dangle the ankles and not take off underwear.”

The tactic:

Cutting sarcasm into a “gotcha”: They treated one setup line as if it were my literal stance, ignoring the explanation that followed.

False contradiction: By pretending I said “Levicorpus strips underwear” as a standalone claim, they got to accuse me of being inconsistent — when the full paragraph makes my point perfectly clear.

Deflection from the real argument: The actual issue was accountability: if Levicorpus exposes underwear, Snape invented that spell. If Levicorpus only lifts people upside down, Snape still invented that spell. Therefore if you argue that James (using on the spell Levicorpus in the scene) takes off Snape's underwear, well he only uses Levicorpus so that would still mean Snape invented a spell to do that. The point was no matter what James only used the spell Snape created. Therefore if the side effect of that spell is exposure, Snape still needs to be held accountable for creating such a spell.

Rebuttal:

The sarcasm wasn’t subtle — it was immediately clarified with a breakdown of the argument I was giving. I fear that was obvious even if you didn't get the sarcasm because of the long ass explanation and set of questions that follows.

My point was: James only uses Levicorpus with no modifications, meaning whatever you want to argue is done with Levicorpus, you have to acknowledge that means Snape invented a spell unless that does that.

Section: The Strawman of “Inventing Is Worse”

My point:

“So that very logic means Snape created a spell that would lift people by their ankles causing their robes to fall down and panties be exposed… Snape = creator of humiliation SA spell. Everyone at Hogwarts then uses humiliation SA spell after he uses it and it gets popular.”

TMF’s twist:

“Even following your logic, what do you mean? That inventing a spell is horrible while JUST using it is fine?”

The tactic:

Strawman argument: I never said invention was worse. I never said using was just fine. I said if the spell is humiliating by design, then Snape is equally culpable as a user (and that culpability is why I can't defend him).

False binary: By reframing it as “invention vs. use,” TMF erased the possibility of both being guilty — which was my actual point.

Deflection: This allowed them to avoid engaging with Snape’s accountability altogether.

Rebuttal:

My argument was about shared guilt, not comparative guilt.

If Levicorpus = SA, then the inventor and the users are all culpable.

Pretending I said invention was “worse” is straight lying about me.

Conclusion for this section: They reframed me into saying something absurd. That’s not debate — that’s erasure of my actual words. And when that erasure of my actual words is then used to pretend I justified SA, we have a huge problem and I can't allow that false narrative to stay out in these internet streets.

Section: The False “Who’s Worse” Trap

TMF’s words:

“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.”

The tactic:

Loaded framing: They present a false choice — either I minimize SA/violence, or I let Snape’s racism slide.

Projection: I never once ranked harms on a scale of “worse.” What I did was point out Snape also committed serious harms, so the “innocent victim” narrative doesn’t hold. Everything that happened to him, he also did to other people (as a teenager, not an adult).

What I actually argued:

I never said slurs were “worse than” SA or attempted murder.

I said Snape’s racism and his own acts of violence mean he isn’t simply “the bullied innocent” and therefore I'm not a Snape defender.

Rebuttal:

Correcting selective narratives isn’t “belittling.” It’s putting all actions on the table.

Section: Refocusing on Racism

TMF’s words (Second Response):

“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 Aubrey) 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?”

My reply:

“Why do you keep trying to equate racism to bullying? What hard on do you get from downplaying it? I didn’t [say] Snape was an evil bully. I don’t think Snape is an evil bully. I think he’s a fucking racist. Do you think Nazis are just bullies? Are you serious? You’re serious? You’re the inconsistent one. The spell used on Bertram Aubrey (a hex not a curse because there is a difference whether you like it or not) got James and Sirius detention. Snape’s actions got Muggleborns murdered and his fellow Death Eaters thrown in prison. Do you think detention and prison are equal? Everyone that goes to detention is just as bad as prisoners?”

My actual point:

I kept the focus on racism. That’s where my argument started and ended.

I drew a clear distinction: bullying gets detention ≠ racist crimes get prison.

I called out the dangerous inconsistency of equating racism with schoolyard bullying.

Rebuttal:

I didn’t justify SA — I wasn’t even talking about SA here.

I didn’t call Snape an “evil bully.” And I clarified that I also didn't think that. I thought he was racist.

My argument stayed consistent: Snape is a racist, and racism isn’t reducible to “bullying.”

Section: The Slipstream Smear

TMF’s words (Third Response):

“I’ve been saying this for years: I don’t care about Snape as a character, I don’t care about Harry Potter as a story… What I’m doing is using the saga to try to highlight double standards… It’s easier to talk about a made-up story than reality. Who in the real world would ever say that excuses bullying, or an SA? But in a story like this, well, you’ve clearly demonstrated it; it’s much easier, and you even feel justified in doing so (and that scares me).”

The tactic:

Slipstream smear: They don’t accuse me outright. Instead, they quietly slip in “excuses bullying, or an SA” as if it’s a casual, established fact.

Two-step framing: First, “Who in the real world would ever excuse this?” (generalized, abstract). Then: “Well, you’ve clearly demonstrated it.” Suddenly, the accusation attaches directly to me.

Burying it in clutter: By hiding the smear inside a paragraph about “double standards” and “made-up stories vs. reality,” they ensured I’d focus my reply on the bigger claims and not the tucked-in accusation.

Why this matters:

This is how the “you justify SA” lie continues to take root throughout their posts. It isn't always a bold claim. Here, it's a quiet insinuation, slipped into broader commentary.

By not quoting my words, TMF could get away with inserting this smear repeatedly — and each time it was harder to spot because it was nested inside other arguments.

Rebuttal:

I never justified SA. Not once.

The smear only exists because TMF kept slipping it into paragraphs until it sounded like a given.

Conclusion for this section: This was a deliberate tactic: slip the smear in subtly, then later treat it as established truth. That’s how they built the foundation for other's louder, bolder accusations.

Section: The “You Said Snape Deserved It” Rewrite

TMF’s words:

“For years I’ve been dealing with people who say Snape deserved all the shit that happened to him, and you, unfortunately, are one of them. You clearly wrote that you think like a bully, you admitted that you too would have been Snape’s bully, and in fact, you behave shamefully even with someone who is writing to you calmly and respectfully.”

The tactic:

False grouping: They lump me in with an entire category of fans who say “Snape deserved all the shit that happened to him.” I never said that.

Word rewrite: My statement — “as a Black woman, I would have bullied a racist for their racism” — was specific to calling out racism. They rewrote it into a blanket admission: “I would bully Snape for everything he went through.”

Future weapon: By creating this blanket framing, they set themselves up to later claim I justified SA — without ever needing a direct quote.

What I actually argued:

I never said Snape “deserved all the shit that happened to him.” And TMF can't produce a quote of me saying that or saying Snape deserved SA because it doesn't exist.

I said racism isn’t excusable, and racists can and should be called out.

My focus stayed on his racism, not on SA or attempted murder.

Section: The Outright Lie

TMF’s words:

“You’re the one who started by comparing what the Marauders do to what Snape does. You blamed the victim, distorted the facts, miscalculated the chronology of canonical events, and belittled an S.A.”

The tactic:

Escalation: After relying on insinuation and strawmen, they finally say it plainly — “you belittled SA.”

No receipts: Notice they don’t attach a single quote from me here. Because they can’t.

Cumulative build: This only “works” because of all the earlier misrepresentations: the slipstream insinuations, the “you think like a bully” rewrite, the “who’s worse” trap. This line cashes those chips in and tries to cement the smear as truth.

What I actually said:

I never once excused or minimized SA.

The only times I mentioned it were:

Clarifying the Levicorpus scene in my US edition (where I thought they wouldn't have inclued the UK meaning of pants because those are two different meanings and therefore pants in the US edition meant pants/trousers like we do in the US).

Pointing out that if Levicorpus = SA, then Snape invented a humiliation spell.

Explicitly stating that James’ SA threat was not okay.

None of that equals belittling SA.

Rebuttal:

This is where the smear turns into a flat lie. Not an interpretation, not a misunderstanding — a lie.

By saying “belittled SA” without quoting me, TMF admitted they had no evidence.

This lie is what OHPF and others later amplified into “she justifies SA.”

Conclusion for this section: The smear went from quiet insinuation to outright fabrication. And once TMF put it in black and white, the damage spread.

Section: The Translation Confusion

Context: When I first addressed the Levicorpus scene, I based my understanding on my U.S. edition of the books. In American English, “pants” = trousers. In U.K. English, “pants” = underpants. My assumption — which makes perfect sense given that the first book was changed from Philosopher’s Stone to Sorcerer’s Stone for American readers — was that all similar language differences would also be changed for U.S. editions. I didn't realize that either the UK meaning of pants was retained or somehow my personal copy of the 5th book was a UK copy rather than a US copy. So when I read “pants” in my copy, I understood that to mean trousers.

Why that matters:

If “pants” = trousers in my edition, then in my reading, Snape wasn’t stripped to his underwear in Order of the Phoenix.

My point wasn’t to excuse James’ actions, but to clarify how I had always read the scene in my edition — where it wasn’t even textual that underwear was exposed.

Later, when I learned that the U.K. meaning of “pants” had been retained, I adjusted. But that still doesn’t change the fact: I wasn’t excusing SA, I was pointing out a believed translation discrepancy.

Why this isn’t belittling SA:

Clarifying a translation isn’t minimizing harm. It’s correcting textual confusion.

My argument was always about what was on the page, not about excusing what James did.

Sidebar: The U.S. Edition’s Pants Problem

When I first referenced Levicorpus, my understanding came directly from my copy of Order of the Phoenix. I went to see if new editions have this issue or not as my books are pretty old and occasional updates in publishing do happen. And I found this issue instead: the text itself is inconsistent now even in recent publications.

Page 647 (U.S. edition): “Snape was hanging upside down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of graying underpants.”

Page 648 (U.S. edition, second Levicorpus): “‘Right,’ said James, who looked furious now, ‘right —’ There was another flash of light, and Snape was once again hanging upside down in the air. ‘Who wants to see me take off Snivelly’s pants?’ But whether James really did take off Snape’s pants, Harry never found out.”

Why this matters (even though I was using my old copies and not newer editions):

The first mention uses “underpants.”

The second switches back to “pants” — which in U.S. English = trousers, not underwear.

If you’re flipping to the end of the scene for reference (as most of us do when quoting), you’d land on “pants,” not “underpants.” That wording would lead people to this day to think Snape was never fully exposed. So even arguments made using the new editions would have this same translation problem as arguments using the copies from back in the day.

The bigger point:

“pants = trousers” reading was based on the text.

This isn’t me belittling SA; it’s a case of translation/editing causing confusion AND a potential case that I had a misprint or wrong country edition (wouldn't be the first time, I have a misprint of the Hunger Games' Mockingjay on my shelf).

It’s not unreasonable that I — or anyone else — would read “pants” as “trousers” when the U.S. versions usually “Americanized” these terms elsewhere (Philosopher’s → Sorcerer’s being the most famous example).

Section: The Caricature Response

TMF’s words:

“Everything Snape endures, before, during, and after, doesn’t matter to you. This is off the charts. Snape is picked on by two rich, arrogant purebloods who call him Snivellus at age 11. And you say: It doesn’t matter, he joined the racists. Snape is attacked 2-on-1. Oh, but he’s racist. Snape is almost killed. You shrug, shouting, ‘He’s a racist!’ Snape is stripped naked in public. Again, ‘He’s a racist!’”

The tactic:

Strawman caricature: TMF takes my actual points about Snape’s racism and rewrites them into a parody where I supposedly dismiss every abuse he suffered with the same line: “He’s a racist.”

Mockery as weapon: By turning my stance into a cartoonish exaggeration, they make it easier to smear me as heartless and irrational.

What I actually argued:

I consistently said Snape was racist and that racism mattered in evaluating him.

I never said James and Sirius’ actions weren’t bullying. What I said was: being rich wasn’t why they bullied him, and numbers (2-on-1) weren’t the main point — racism was.

I didn’t equate or excuse SA. I said Snape also created and used harmful spells (Sectumsempra, Levicorpus), meaning he wasn’t just an innocent victim.

Rebuttal:

TMF’s version of my stance (“shrugging at abuse”) doesn’t exist in my words. They can’t produce a quote because it never happened.

My actual stance was always nuanced: yes, James and Sirius bullied Snape, and Snape was racist. Both can be true. That’s very different from saying “only racism matters, everything else doesn’t.”

Conclusion for this section: TMF didn’t just misinterpret me; they put words in my mouth. They turned my position into a parody so they could ridicule it, instead of engaging with what I actually said.

Sidebar: “Stripped” vs. “Exposed”

One recurring phrase TMF used was that Snape was “stripped in public” rather than exposed. This seems purposeful. Because to recognize the distinction creates a separate problem. Here’s the distinction:

Levicorpus lifts the target by the ankle, causing any loose clothing to fall down (loose shirts, skirts, robes, loose dresses). Snape, not wearing trousers under his robe, ended up exposed in his underwear. That’s exposure — but not stripping.

The spell itself was Snape’s own invention. That means it was inherently designed to risk humiliation through exposure. If anyone had cast it on a girl in a skirt, the effect would have been the same.

Later, James makes a separate, disgusting threat to remove Snape’s underwear — and I’ve already said clearly that this was not okay.

Why this distinction matters: By repeatedly framing the event as “stripping,” TMF shifts attention away from the fact that Snape himself created a spell that inherently exposes people based solely on if they are wearing loose clothes when the spell hits them. Recognizing that he was “exposed” by a spell of his own design doesn’t excuse James’ actions — it clarifies what the text actually shows.

Sidebar: Levicorpus as a Humiliation Spell

It’s worth being precise here. Levicorpus doesn’t “strip” someone — it flips them upside down. But the mechanics mean that any loose clothing falls. Gravity pulls things down so when upside down, gravity pulls down all loose clothing.

On Snape, this meant his robes fell and exposed his underwear.

On someone in a skirt or dress (especially since some people don't wear shorts underneath), the spell would expose underwear.

On anyone in a loose shirt, their chest could be exposed.

In other words: the spell is built for public exposure. Snape didn’t invent a harmless prank; he created a spell where humiliation was the natural outcome.

Section: The Selective Quote Trap

My full words:

“Lies. Curse and hex are different. Established. Canon by JK Rowling. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative but it's true. So yes, James never cursed anyone innocent. Because he casted hexes and jinxes. And it's not a stretch because when some jinxes someone they use the verb jinx. When someone hexes someone they use the verb hex. And the concept of innocence here scares you? When you've been defending racism? Girl, get out of here.”

What TMF quoted:

“And the concept of innocence here scares you? When you've been defending racism? Girl, get out of here.”

What TMF then said:

“Again, I didn't defend racism. But yes, the concept of innocence scares me. Because you clearly justify something, even the most horrific, if the victim is not ‘innocent’ and that's terribly problematic. You know when someone comments on a news story like, ‘Oh, but the girl who was the victim of SA wasn't innocent’? That scares me.”

The tactic:

TMF ignores the entire first half of my response (about curses vs. hexes).

They pull one sentence out of context, erase the part where I was addressing the canon definition of a curse vs a hex, and blow it up into a new accusation.

They then drag in SA, claiming that my point about “innocence” means I justify "even the most horrific" meaning SA as clarified in the example they give if the victim isn’t innocent.

Why this is dishonest:

I never said anything about SA here. The entire context was hexes vs. curses and James’ actions.

TMF reframed my point into a moral panic about SA to discredit me, while erasing my actual argument.

This is projection: they themselves had been downplaying racism (“just mistakes,” “just classism”), so they twisted the “innocence” point into a way to accuse me of downplaying something horrific.

Section: From Hexes to SA — the Bait-and-Switch

What I said:

James never cursed anyone “innocent” in canon. He hexed and jinxed people, but hexes ≠ curses. This is straight from Rowling’s definitions.

What TMF did:

Ignored my entire argument about spell categories.

Isolated one sentence (“the concept of innocence scares you?”).

Pivoted into a completely unrelated SA comparison, accusing me of justifying SA if a victim isn’t innocent.

Why this is dishonest:

I never brought up SA in this exchange. TMF introduced it, unprompted.

The topic was hexes, not levicorpus, not snape's worst memory, and NOT sexual assault.

They used SA as a rhetorical weapon to smear me instead of addressing the text.

Section: The SA Smear Goes Private

In our DMs, TMF wrote:

“You probably didn't realize it at the time, but with this idea of me supporting racism, with microaggressions, prejudices, or whatever, you were rude, you belittled a SA, and you clearly said you support bullying if the victim is not innocent. These things are serious.”

Why this is a lie:

I never “belittled” SA — anywhere. Not in my original post, not in replies, not in DMs.

The only time I even addressed SA was to say explicitly that I do not justify James’ threat during the Levicorpus scene.

TMF is reframing my points about racism and bullying into a false narrative about SA to make me sound immoral and unsafe.

Why this is harmful:

This is not debate language. It’s character assassination.

Accusing someone of “belittling SA” is one of the ugliest things you can pin on a person, especially when it’s baseless.

And it’s repeated — TMF didn’t just say this once in public, they doubled down in private.

Section: My Explicit Rebuttal

When TMF accused me in DMs of “belittling SA,” I responded directly:

“Babes don't start. Don't… I don't owe you shit about my personal life but if it makes you feel better I'm an SA victim and been in a domestic violence situation as a kid. Don't start that shit with me because I didn't say once that he deserved SA or bullying for SA. Don't you dare even imply that shit. I don't tolerate it.”

This matters for two reasons:

I made my stance clear. I told them flat out that I never justified SA, and I explained exactly why their accusation was harmful.

They ignored it. In all of TMF’s later posts, they never acknowledged that I corrected them — they just kept allowinf the same lie that I “belittled SA” to be out there.

That isn’t misunderstanding. That’s willful dishonesty.

Side note: Before anyone tries to claim I was “using my identity as a shield.” Sharing that I am an SA survivor wasn’t about hiding behind anything — it was about making it clear why their smear was so deeply offensive and unacceptable. This wasn’t theory for me. This was lived reality.

Section: The “No Point in Denying It” Lie

TMF wrote to me in DMs:

“Plus, there's really no point in denying reality; the post is there, everyone can read it, and what you wrote remains. You clearly said you would have bullied Snape too. You said, explicitly or not, that what he suffered doesn't matter; you belittled him because your response to everything was racism.”

Why this is false:

“You clearly said you would have bullied Snape too” — I said I would bully a racist for racism. TMF erases that context every time to make it sound like I endorsed bullying for no reason.

“What he suffered doesn’t matter” — I never said this. I repeatedly stated that James’ threats of SA were not okay.

“You belittled him because your response to everything was racism” — I focused on Snape’s racism because that was my point. Saying “racism matters” is not belittling; it’s naming the real harm.

The tactic:

TMF frames their distortions as “reality” that “everyone can read.”

This is gaslighting: repeat a falsehood often enough, insist it’s undeniable, and hope readers won’t fact-check.

Section: Projection and Deflection

After accusing me over and over of “belittling SA” and “justifying bullying,” TMF still had the audacity to DM me:

“Please stop accusing me of false things.”

But here’s the reality:

They lied about me. They repeatedly said I justified or belittled SA, when I explicitly said the opposite.

They defamed me. They ran to public posts claiming they had been “defamed” — all while spreading false accusations about me.

They projected. When other people told them they wouldn’t debate with them anymore because they sounded racist, they blamed me. But I never told anyone to call them racist — their own words spoke for themselves.

The hypocrisy:

TMF wanted to play the victim of defamation, while actively defaming me with this SA lie.

They wanted to claim “I never insulted you,” while accusing me of one of the ugliest things possible.

Section: The Public Defamation

In their public post claiming they had been “defamed,” TMF wrote:

“The girl, however, clearly admitted that she belittles and supports bullying if the victim isn't ‘innocent’ and clearly stated that she, too, would have bullied Snape.”

Why this is false:

TMF erases the context of “for racism” every single time to reframe my words as blanket cruelty.

Why this is defamation:

They know I explicitly clarified in DMs that I never justified or belittled SA.

That’s not a misunderstanding — that’s a lie made into a headline.

Section: OHPF Picks Up the Smear

OHPF wrote in response to me:

“You're really justifying bullying YOU'RE JUSTIFYING bullying and what the character suffered, attempted murder and SA. You're scary girl, really 💀”

Why this is false:

I never justified SA or attempted murder. In fact, I explicitly stated multiple times that James’ threat of SA was not okay.

My point from the beginning was that Snape’s racism mattered, and that calling out racism is not “bullying.”

OHPF twisted this into a claim that I was excusing attempted murder and SA — which is not only a lie, but an extremely dangerous one.

Why this is harmful:

They didn’t just misinterpret — they accused me publicly of excusing sexual assault.

They used a mocking emoji (💀) while doing it, trivializing both the subject matter and their own accusation.

This wasn’t debate. It was an escalation into character assassination.

Section: Refuting OHPF in Real Time

My direct response to OHPF was:

*“Dude, I have never said attempted murder or SA is correct. I said bullying someone over racism is not wrong. Notice how I explicitly said bullying a racist FOR RACISM. As in when they do racist things, calling them a name or not wanting to fuck with them is perfectly acceptable. The fact that you find a problem with that is what's scary. I don't know how many times you can actively read the words I wrote about bullying a racist FOR RACISM and then turn around and say ‘so you're justifying SA.’ Where???? I said racism. I actually explicitly stated that I don't even think James threatening the SA was okay by any means. Y'all at this point are hearing what you want and reading what you want, and if that means you don't want to acknowledge that I am talking about racism, that's fine. But then don't start saying I'm scary or I'm dangerous when you and I know damn well that wasn't what I was talking about. So once more. I do not think there is anything to justify attempted murder or SA. I explicitly call out James' threat of it as not okay. In the same breath, I can say that I don't think racism is okay. And if someone is being racist, that's fine to call them out.”*

Why this matters:

I clarified — multiple times — that I do not excuse SA or attempted murder.

I repeated, multiple times, that my point was about racism.

I directly called out the smear as false.

Section: The Smear Becomes a Chorus

At one point, TMF and OHPF even reinforced each other’s false claims in public. OHPF wrote:

“This means that girl is openly approving not only of bullying but also The Prank and SA 😖”

Why this matters:

The lie had already been repeated enough that OHPF felt comfortable stating it as fact.

They even attached a “😖” emoji — trivializing the seriousness of the accusation while pretending to be the reasonable, moral voice.

This is how the smear spread: not because of evidence, but because one person (TMF) invented it, and another (OHPF) echoed it as though it were undeniable.

The problem:

I never once said SA or The Prank were justified.

In fact, I explicitly said both were not okay.

But OHPF erased my words, repeated TMF’s smear, and added performative disgust for effect.

Section: Clarifying “The Prank”

Here’s what I actually wrote:

“Like I'm not necessarily absolving Sirius because he should have known that the boy who hates them would be arrogant enough to still go after them even if he thinks Remus is a werewolf. But still, that means Snape was arrogant or stupid enough to do that despite his suspicions before confronting Sirius, which he did on the night of the full moon so at this point Snape knows he has all the facts.”

And in another post:

“This does show that even though Sirius was wrong to tell him how to get into the Whomping Willow, Severus suspected something was up and proceeded to go on a full moon anyway. If you suspected he's a werewolf, why take the chance?”

What this means:

I said Sirius was wrong.

I did not absolve him.

My point was that Snape also made an arrogant and reckless choice, which doesn’t erase Sirius’ wrongdoing but complicates the picture.

What this is not:

I never said “Snape deserved it.”

I never said the Prank was justified.

I never said attempted murder was okay.

The reality: Critiquing Snape’s arrogance ≠ excusing Sirius’ actions. But TMF and OHPF twisted this into: “She justifies the Prank and SA.”

Section: The Bad-Faith Pivot

In OHPF’s own words:

“You don’t excuse the prank or the SA good.”

Yet, in the same post, they also wrote:

“You may not have noticed, but you justified Snape's bullying because he used a racist slur. SA and The Prank are completely wrong.”

So which is it? Do I “justify SA,” or do I explicitly not excuse it? They admit the latter… but never retract the former.

Why this is a problem:

If you finally admit I don’t excuse SA, then the honest move would be to correct the lie that I ever did.

Instead, OHPF leaves the smear standing, ensuring the narrative (“she excuses SA”) lingers.

This is deliberate. It’s not a mistake or misunderstanding — it’s keeping the accusation alive while pretending to concede.

Addendum: OHPF’s Continued Lie (as of Sep 10th/11th)

Despite already admitting in one of their own replies that I do not excuse or justify SA, OHPF has again returned to the false accusation. At this point, this is no longer a misunderstanding. This is a willful lie. I cannot allow it to stand unaddressed, which is why I am adding this addendum here.

OHPF:

"I didn't make any equivalence; it's just part of the story. What you're treating as if it were some childish prank is actually serious bullying that involves SA and Attempted Murder. You can't turn a blind eye and pretend it doesn't exist. If you believe Snape deserved it—the bullying—then what you're saying is clear. You think what he suffered is just. Do you want to draw a line between attempted murder and SA? Fine, do so, but you're actively justifying serious bullying."

Once again, OHPF deliberately misrepresents my words. I have never said Snape “deserved” SA, nor that I excused attempted murder. In fact, I explicitly stated the opposite, multiple times: I do not excuse James’ threat, and I do not believe any SA is ever justified.

What OHPF is doing here is clear: they are collapsing any criticism of Snape’s racism into “justifying bullying,” and then twisting “bullying” into “justifying SA.” This is not a misunderstanding — this is a willful lie.

OHPF:

"Oh wow, that's where you're at. After days and days of endless debate, you clearly said, 'It's not actually bullying to call out a racist.' So with your attempt to distort reality, you now want to deny that it's actually bullying. So I repeat what I said in a comment: if this is your true thesis, then you can't hide behind false moral boundaries. You don't excuse the SA or The Prank, but you say it's not really bullying? What isn't? Everything except those two events? So, in your opinion, what Snape suffered wasn't bullying, what he suffered was deserved, and you're still here trying to convince people that you're not justifying or downplaying bullying? … And this is truly a cowardly and manipulative attitude."

This is where OHPF openly confirms what I already said: they need me to say “bullying a racist is fine” so they can twist it into “she excuses SA.” When I corrected myself — clarifying that calling out racism isn’t bullying at all — they immediately reframed that correction as “cowardly and manipulative.”

What they’re doing here isn’t debate; it’s an attempt to trap me in their framing. No matter how many times I state that I do not excuse SA or attempted murder, they continue collapsing my words into the narrative that I “belittle” those things. This is not an honest disagreement — it’s a smear campaign.

OHPF Addresses Me Directly

“I recently returned to Tumblr and stumbled upon this discussion. It was really interesting at first, and even though it didn't end well, I think it could be useful. But this behavior really doesn't make sense. You've written some very serious things and you don't realize it:

you can't understand bullying a racist isn't wrong because they're racist.

anyone who says bullying a racist for racism is wrong or shouldn't be justified is a dangerous person.

bullying a racist isn't wrong. You're really justifying bullying YOU'RE JUSTIFYING bullying and what the character suffered, attempted murder and SA. You're scary girl, really 💀”*

Rebuttal

Misrepresentation spiral. OHPF collapses my actual words (“I’d bully a racist for being racist”) into a distorted list of exaggerated straw men. They repeat “bullying isn’t wrong” three different ways as if I said all of them, then tack on attempted murder and SA — which I never said, implied, or condoned.

SA smear escalation. By claiming I “justify” SA, OHPF doesn’t just misinterpret. They invent. That accusation is vile, and repeated without evidence. This is a deliberate

OHPF’s “Clarification”

“The idea that it's okay to bully someone who does bad things is troubling. And maybe I understand why you're having such a hard time grasping the point, so much so that you've unfairly accused @the-most-faithful: since you think it's okay to bully a racist, then if someone tells you that bullying is always wrong, you believe they're defending racism, when in reality, that's not the case. They're just telling you that bullying is always wrong, regardless of who the victim is.”

Rebuttal

Erasing context again. I said I’d bully a racist for being racist. That’s not a blanket statement about bullying — that’s naming accountability for racism. OHPF flattens this into a childish slogan so they don’t have to engage with the actual point.

Misframing TMF. OHPF claims I “unfairly accused TMF.” But TMF’s words speak for themselves: they repeatedly defended Snape’s use of slurs, reframed Death Eater racism as “classism,” and equated a nickname with a racial slur. Pointing that out isn’t unfair. It’s accurate.

Conclusion OHPF’s “clarification” doesn’t clarify. It reduces. It distorts. It reframes calling out racism as “unfairly accusing someone,” while flattening an entire archive of context into one hollow slogan.

OHPF’s Argument

“This is precisely the point I believe led you two to misunderstand each other in the first place. It's not about saying a racist is racist, that's not a problem; the problem is justifying bullying, as you clearly did. I repeat, Snape wasn't bullied for being racist; he was bullied by James and Sirius from the train ride onward, and even years later, their bullying isn't tied to Snape racism. You're starting from a flawed assumption. Saying that no one deserves to be bullied is the most rational and sensible approach, even from a practical standpoint.”

Rebuttal

The erasure of racism. OHPF acts like racism is irrelevant to the story — but canon shows Snape was aligned with Mulciber and Avery, known for Dark Arts, and used the slur Mudblood. His racism wasn’t invisible; it was central to his character.

The mislabeling. I never “justified bullying.” I said: I’d bully a racist for being racist. That’s not a blanket pro-bullying stance; that’s calling racism a dealbreaker. OHPF flattens this into “she approves bullying” because it’s easier to attack a caricature than my actual words. And they keep acting like I didn't say "for being racist." I never said that I'd bully a racist for other things.

Flawed Assumption. They frame my position as “a flawed assumption” when there are holes in their argument: erasing Snape’s racism from canon and rewriting bullying as completely one-sided. That’s not rational analysis. That’s rewriting the text to protect Snape. It is explicitly stated that Snape and James gave and got with each other. It is also explicitly stated that Snape uses slurs and was with the Death Eaters even as a student. That's what I based my assumption on. The canon. Those two canon facts. So it's not a flawed assumption

Conclusion OHPF’s “sensible approach” is just another shield. Neutral slogans mean nothing when they’re deployed to erase racism and smear the people naming it.

OHPF’s “Everything You Wrote is Invalid”

“Great, so everything you wrote in the debate—which I've retrieved in full—is invalid. The issue of SA not being tempted by what James does, the fact that it's Snape's fault, etc., no longer holds up. You don't excuse the prank or the SA, good. Denouncing racism is also fine, but bullying isn't the way to do it, especially if the bullying isn't even linked to Snape's racism.”

Rebuttal

Just Plain Wrong. I said directly: I don’t excuse SA, I don’t excuse attempted murder, and racism isn’t okay. OHPF’s response? “Everything you wrote is invalid.” It's not. Because if I never excused SA in my text and you claim I did so I correct you, how does that make what I wrote invalid? I never in my original argument excused SA. If I never excused attempted murder in my text and you claim I did so I correct you, how does that make what I wrote invalid? I never in my original argument excused attempted murder. You didn't retrieve what I wrote in full if you actively lie about what was written.

The SA smear again. They keep returning to “the prank” and “the SA” even after I explicitly said I do not justify either. This isn’t a debate — it’s defamation on loop.

The rhetorical trap. This is their pattern:

Step 1: Misquote me.

Step 2: Declare the misquote “invalid.”

Step 3: Pretend the debate is closed. But their “victory” only works if you ignore the actual words I wrote.

Conclusion OHPF’s “everything you wrote is invalid” isn’t analysis. It’s just wrong.

Side Note: Willful Ignorance of Clarification

In my reply, I made it crystal clear:

“It’s not actually bullying to call out a racist. I used that term because y’all keep using it but I shouldn’t have, because now it’s being turned into this excuse. So I admit I was wrong on that end. What I should have said was: If you think calling out racism is bullying then you are a scary and dangerous person to be around because that means racism is okay in your book.”

I clarified my point in case they truly misunderstood despite the countless previous explanations.

But OHPF’s response ignored all of it:

“You don’t excuse the prank or the SA, good. Denouncing racism is also fine, but bullying isn’t the way to do it…”

They erased the very clarification I had just made, because admitting it would dismantle the excuse they’d been clinging to.

OHPF’s “Both Sides”

“Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right. Sorry to butt in, but honestly, reading your debate, I think it was all a huge misunderstanding that led you to say harsh things that would have been better avoided. These are certainly sensitive topics and therefore should be handled with caution. Perhaps that's what the most faithful meant? I don't know, I think the whole debate was heated, but in the end, neither of you are truly bad people. You simply have two different approaches to the issue, and you're not trying to defend negative things (bullying or racism), but rather defending the victims. It's just that you two are starting from opposite sides.”

Rebuttal

Not a misunderstanding. This wasn’t confusion or heat-of-the-moment harshness. TMF defended racism and minimized slurs. OHPF smeared me with SA accusations. Naming that isn’t a “misunderstanding,” it’s accountability.

Both-sides fallacy. There aren’t “two equal sides” here. One side defended or excused racist behavior. The other side named it as racism. Pretending these are “two approaches to the same issue” is false neutrality — it erases harm to protect comfort.

The minimization trick. Saying “neither of you are bad people” is a deflection. I never called TMF or OHPF “bad people.” I called their words and actions racist and harmful. They turn that into a moral character defense, which avoids dealing with the racism itself. After they also called me scary, rude, aggressive, has bad behavior first. But it was only a problem when I started pointing that out so now we have to deflect to "neither of you are bad people?"

Conclusion OHPF’s closing isn’t reconciliation — it’s erasure. By pretending this was just “two wrongs” or “different approaches,” they turn racism and anti-racism into equal stances, and that is itself a defense of racism.

OHPF’s First Public Comment (After the DMs post)

“Girl, you're really exaggerating. the-most-faithful said they wouldn't respond to any more of your posts about them, and you're still doing it. I don't know if it's the same in your country, but it's definitely improper to publish private conversations without the other person's consent. In the public exchange you two had, you definitely called them racist. Posts are public, so it makes no sense for you to try to manipulate things. However, reading the messages, the only rude person was you, and once again, you're trying to justify your bad behavior. 😑”

Rebuttal

Tone-policing out the gate. Starting with “Girl, you’re really exaggerating” sets the tone: dismissive, patronizing, and minimizing. They frame me as overreacting rather than addressing the content of the DMs.

The “improper” deflection. Claiming it’s “improper” to share DMs is just a way to silence accountability. The DMs were evidence of microaggressions, lies, and bad faith. Public harm doesn’t get protected by private silence.

The lie about calling TMF racist. In the public thread, I never called TMF “a racist.” I pointed out racist behavior and microaggressions. OHPF collapses those into the same thing to smear me as dishonest.

The manipulation smear. Saying I’m “trying to manipulate things” is ironic — since TMF and OHPF were the ones twisting my words, inventing false claims (like “justifying SA”), and reframing the entire debate around bullying to erase racism.

Emoji performance. Ending with 😑 underscores the performance — dismissing racism and microaggressions as if they’re petty drama. That trivialization is itself a microaggression.

Conclusion OHPF’s very first comment set the pattern: dismiss, deflect, lie, smear, trivialize. Instead of engaging with racism, they framed me as manipulative and rude. Everything they did after followed the same playbook.

OHPF Escalates

Me:

“I have a post about this coming up where everything is laid out in timeline order. You yourself have actively lied about what I said multiple times now. And the-most-faithful literally said she had screenshots if I was a coward and tried to delete anything. So I posted the damn screenshots.”

OHPF:

“What? When did I lie? You're openly distorting things when you defamed someone and now you're sharing private correspondence and still absurdly attacking a person who has never insulted you, while you've clearly done so in public and private. Reread what you wrote.”

Rebuttal: The lie is right here: OHPF pretends they never misrepresented me, but their record is full of distortions — claiming I justified SA, claiming I excused bullying wholesale, claiming I called TMF “a racist.” Each one is a lie.

Me:

“I have one question because this will answer everything I need to know about you and everyone in this. Do you think a single thing you might have done or said, or that the-most-faithful said was a microaggression or defending racism? Not racist. I didn't call you racist, don't try to deflect to that.”

OHPF:

“No, you're not calling me a racist, but judging by what you did with the-most-faithful, it's clear you're still aiming to do so. If someone tries to make you understand that you've been aggressive or wrong, you hide by accusing others of downplaying racism or using microaggressions, and that's unfair. I'm criticizing you for the way you've behaved and continue to behave. If you think everyone criticizing you is engaging in microaggressions, you're thinking really strangely. Can anyone criticize you without being accused of being racist? Answer this, please.”

Rebuttal:

The dodge. They refuse to answer the actual question: “Do you think anything you said could be a microaggression?” Instead, they deflect back to “you’re unfairly accusing everyone of racism.” They never answer my question but deflect which is exactly what I knew would happen and called out.

The smear. Framing my naming of microaggressions as “hiding.” Or you said microaggressions. Truth hurts.

The false premise. I never said every criticism is racism. I named specific behaviors — tone-policing, erasing canon racism, minimizing slurs. OHPF erases all that to straw man me as someone who “just can’t take criticism.”

OHPF again:

“I'm still waiting for an answer.”

Me:

“I told you I'm making a post addressing this. You can wait a little longer. Thank you.”

Rebuttal: This shows the loop: demand an immediate answer, ignore when told it’s coming, then double down as if silence means guilt.

OHPF on My “Outside Commentary”

Me (separate post):

“Note on outside commentary: As I’m putting together the archive, I’m also seeing ‘mean girl’ energy in the sidelines — laughing, sneering, but never engaging with the actual points. … And to be clear, I’m not ignoring questions or comments from the peanut gallery on the sidelines. Every bit of that is also being documented, and it will be addressed when I reach the appropriate spot in the archive.”

OHPF:

“Girl, you're seriously making a huge fuss out of a debate you've backed out of. You said serious things, and to avoid taking responsibility, you're spending days and days on this long series of screenshots without answering the questions or getting to the heart of the matter. Because at this point it really seems like you're trying to climb up the walls, exploiting as much as possible a debate that you yourself said you wanted to close, and yet here you are, days later. I asked you just one question simple and clear, and I don't think entire posts or days of waiting are necessary to get an answer. ‘Can someone disagree with you or criticize some of your attitudes without being accused of being racist or using microaggressions?’”

Rebuttal

Not Satisfied With My Process on My Personal Blog. They dismiss my deliberate, structured archive (“days and days on this long series of screenshots”) as if taking time to fully document is avoidance. In reality, it’s the opposite — I’m ensuring clarity and receipts.

False urgency. OHPF frames their one question as the “heart of the matter” and insists I answer now, ignoring that I’ve already said it will be addressed in the archive. This isn’t about curiosity; it’s about control.

Loaded question trap. Their “simple” question — “Can anyone criticize you without being accused of racism or microaggressions?” — is designed to smear me either way. If I say yes, they’ll claim all their behavior was valid criticism. If I say no, they’ll call me irrational. Either way, it erases the fact that I was pointing out specific racist behavior, not “all criticism.”

Minimizing harm. By calling the archive a “fuss” and me “climbing the walls,” they trivialize racism and defamation (like the repeated SA smear) into mere drama. That’s not neutrality — it’s minimization. And even if it is a fuss. How does me fussing on my own blog bother you? Or is it me calling out the trivialization of racism and the defamation?

Conclusion OHPF’s comments here reveal their entire playbook: dismiss the process, demand immediate answers, reframe specificity into “you just call all criticism racist,” and minimize harm as “fuss.”

Side Note: Ignoring the Archive Structure

OHPF claimed I was “posting screenshots without answering anything.” That’s false. Every single post was titled CHAPTER 1: THE TIMELINE. The entire point of that stage was to establish the record — not to argue my answers inside the timeline itself.

Why would I muddy a clear timeline with commentary? The whole point was to separate it:

Chapter 1: Screenshots, dates, order of events.

Later chapters: Analysis, rebuttals, and responses.

Chapter 4 Conclusion

At the end of the day, every single person addressed in this chapter — TMF, GG, SGG, and OHPF — followed the same playbook:

Deny or minimize racism.

TMF reframed slurs and Death Eater ideology as “mistakes” or “classism.”

GG mocked the very idea of literary allegory, dismissing Rowling’s own words about Death Eaters as Nazi-coded.

OHPF insisted “no one deserves to be bullied” while using that slogan to erase Snape’s racism entirely.

Deploy microaggressions.

Calling me “aggressive” for naming racism.

Trivializing SA accusations with emojis.

Suggesting I was “irrational” or “making a fuss” while they ignored the plain words in front of them.

Smear instead of engage.

Inventing false claims that I “justified SA.”

Collapsing specific points (calling out racism) into straw men (“you said bullying is good”).

Declaring my words “invalid” rather than engaging with them.

This wasn’t a misunderstanding. This wasn’t “just two sides.” This was a repeated pattern of racism being defended and minimized, paired with microaggressions and lies aimed at me for daring to name it.

And that is shameful. Shameful to defend slurs. Shameful to excuse Death Eaters. Shameful to twist words into accusations of SA. Shameful to use tone-policing and false neutrality as shields.