#class issues

You are better off.

Yes, and I’ve talked about this many times before too. Sirius and James weren’t just from a higher social class, they were at the very top of the privilege pyramid within Hogwarts: both wealthy, from prominent families, both pure-bloods. There’s an entire social web at play that meant not only did they feel entitled to bully a boy below them both economically and socially, but they also knew — whether consciously or not — that their actions would have no consequences.

And I’m not just referring to the fact that, if they were at risk of being expelled, their families could step in and exert pressure. I’m talking about the economic security they had. If they had been expelled, it wouldn’t have mattered: they had money, they came from affluent backgrounds, they weren’t going to end up on the streets, they weren’t going to lose everything. If Severus had been expelled, he would’ve had to go back to a slum in a deprived area, with an abusive father, in an environment where he couldn’t even afford proper clothes. Going home wasn’t an option for him, going home meant losing any chance, no matter how small, of doing something with his life.

Sirius and James didn’t have to worry about that. They had options. So of course, it was much easier to go after the boy who not only already came from a disadvantaged situation — and was therefore a more vulnerable target — but also couldn’t defend himself with full force because doing so could get him expelled, and that was a risk he simply couldn’t afford. That played a major role in the whole dynamic. Sirius and James were a pair of privileged, aristocratic brats, and their true colours showed when they found the perfect victim, someone they felt entitled to bully for his ideas or his friendships. But regardless of Severus’s views, the truth is that this was a situation involving two boys with power targeting a boy with no support. That’s not just abusive, it’s profoundly classist.

If James and Sirius had any real courage or genuine political ideals, they would’ve gone after Mulciber, Avery, or Rosier, but those three weren’t easy targets, and messing with them wouldn’t have come cheap. So, well… better to go for the poor kid, right?

Don’t come at me with that classist nonsense. What you’re doing is taking a group that already has fewer resources and fewer opportunities, and then framing the effects of that as if they were inherent traits.

When you say they’re “violent” or “not particularly clever,” you’re ignoring the fact that those things are often linked to material conditions: underfunded schools, lack of support, fewer opportunities, social marginalisation. It’s not that people “are like that,” it’s that they’re dealing with a system that gives them less to begin with. Reducing that to personal failings is exactly how class prejudice sustains itself.

And “chav” isn’t neutral, it’s a label that’s been used in the UK to mock and stigmatise working-class people. So your argument doesn’t just describe, it reinforces a stereotype and keeps that stigma going, without actually engaging with the root of the problem.