Sadism or not WAS: Re: Lack of re-examination

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 186618

> a_svirn:
> What bothers me though is that McGonagall who delights in bullying Neville and making him suffer emotionally every bit as much as Snape does somehow escapes the same "sadism" charge. Why? Is it because we are told that she is really a "big softie" very deep down? This is a nice circular argument we have there: because she is not "predisposed" to sadism she is not a sadist and therefore what she does is not sadism by definition.
> 
> Alla:
> 
<snip>I absolutely believe that there are character traits people are predisposed to and born with. <snip>
> 
> But of course whole nature/nurture debate is significantly more complicated then that. All that I am saying that I do not find the **idea** of person being predisposed to some things and not to others to be disturbing, that's all.

a_avirn:
I don't find it disturbing either. What I am objecting to is that a person's supposed predisposition is used to evaluate their *actions*. 

> Alla:
> But to go back to Potterland, um, where are you getting that Mcgonagall escapes charge of sadism (from me at least) for the reason you described?
> 
> I agreed in the past that what Mcgonagall does to Neville here is completely horrible and yes, I think borders on abuse.
> 
> But I believe in my mind that what Snape does is worse and I think it is a bona fide reason regardless of how I feel about characters.
> 
> McGonagall does **NOT** single out Neville when she is asking "which incredibly foolish person", doesn't she? I believe that **anybody**, anybody who would have confessed would have gotten exactly same treatment from her.

a_svirn:
But that only means that McGonagall is indiscriminative in her abuse, whereas Snape has some preferences. Still they both indulge in humiliating and inflicting emotional pain on a student – which in your book amounts to sadism. 

> Alla:
> So, while I do not like the treatment that she gives Neville, I totally think that she does not give a swat whom she disposes punishment to. While I think Snape very much does. I mean, cutting horned toads? Threatening to poison Trevor? Snape would have no chance to give anybody same punishment for the very simple reason that nobody else HAS a toad, no?
> 
> So, yes, I just think what Mcgonagall does here simply cannot be described as sadism and thus not very relevant just as you seem to believe that what Snape does is not sadism.

a_svirn:
You seem to be saying that meeting out abusive and emotionally painful punishments indiscriminativly is not sadism, while doing the same thing to a few select victims is? Not that McGonagall wasn't occasionally creative when it came to punishments. That night's outing to the Forbidden Forest? Not only it literally put her students' lives in jeopardy – I mean, there was someone out there  desperate enough to kill Unicorns! – but just imagine how utterly scared Draco must have been! In the Forest at night with his worst enemies and a gigantic gamekeeper who is not known for his love of Slytherins, and who had moreover a grievance  against Draco. I think he was every bit as scared as Neville was when Snape threatened to poison his toad.