Ron: prejudices, meanness

[heidit at netbox.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 16409

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., zsenya at s... wrote:
 
> There's perhaps a stereotype out there that all regular visitors to 
> the SugarQuill are staunch defenders of Ron and unwilling to admit 
> that he could ever be in the wrong (I'm not saying that is the 
> stereotype, but I'm just using that as an example of something that 
> *might* be the stereotype)

Just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding what you said here, 
Zsenya, I looked up the word "stereotype" at the Merriam-Webster 
site - it is defined as, "something conforming to a fixed or general 
pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in 
common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified 
opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment"

I want to point out that it didn't seem like Penny was suggesting 
anything about "regular visitors" to Sugarquill Island. I pop over 
there at least once a week myself, as some of the regulars who 
responded to my comment about naming my son Harrison after the books 
could attest, and it is probably well known to many, including Penny, 
that while I will staunchly defend on on certain things, I likewise 
often admit that he is in the wrong. 

I also want to point out to those who may not have visited the 
Sugarquill site that the site itself has a "Purpose of Existence" 
which reads as follows: 

<<We will state outright that we are in favor of Ron with Hermione, 
and Harry with Ginny (though he is allowed to date Cho, in our 
opinion.)  We disapprove of Hermione and Draco. We will not tolerate 
such smut. Also, know that we love Harry and we love Hermione, but we 
do not love them together.>>

It also says that the site founders <<couldn't find any group on the 
net that was equal to our particular interests and opinions, so we 
decided to set up a small forum for ourselves, where like-minded 
Potterites are welcome to join us>>  

Back to definitions - as a stereotype can incorporate a prejudiced 
attitude, I went to the definition of "prejudice" and discovered that 
it is defined as "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just 
grounds or before sufficient knowledge". How could someone who formed 
an opinion about the "purpose" of Sugarquill.com based on the 
site's "purpose of existence" be demonstrating a prejudice? That 
would be the equivilant of reading the About the ACLU page (located 
at http://www.aclu.org/library/FreedomIsWhy.pdf) and saying that the 
ACLU supports First Amendment rights. Would that be a prejudiced 
comment about that organization, given that said comment is based 
entirely on statements made by them on their own site? I didn't think 
so. 

Zsenya, you yourself are listed as a "headmistress" on the Sugarquill 
site, so it would be a bit disingenuous to now state that things 
which are specifically listed as "purpose[s]" on the Sugarquill Site 
are, if mentioned by someone who is not part of your "staff", 
prejudiced comments. 

I am sure that "all types" visit SugarQuill, but Penny was saying 
*nothing* about those who visit the site. She was responding 
specifically to a post by Arabella (post # 16320)  wherein Arabella 
said that Penny's view on something in canon (post # 16310) was "one 
way to look at" that particular scene. Ergo, I believe, and I am sure 
she will correct me if I'm wrong, that she was saying that Arabella 
was a "SugarQuill type". Are you now going to say that Arabella, who 
is also a "headmistress" there, is not a "SugarQuill type"?

And why is being a "Sugarquill type" a bad thing. You sound oh so 
defensive in your post, as if Penny's use of that phrase was a 
negative thing. 

Personally, I don't see this as an THEM vs US rumble - who is 
the "them"? who is the "us"? Why are *you* trying to draw dividing 
lines here on HP4GU? Aren't we all just speaking our minds about our 
different perspectives on canon? 
 
> Before we start coming down on Ron for distrusting werewolves 
> initially or commenting that all giants might be mean-spirited, 
let's 
> maybe take a look at our own prejudices.  Everyone has them; not 
> everyone is daring enough to vocalize them.
And not eveyone is so paranoid as to see prejudices where none exist.