#and the fact that the person who came up with this was a SNATER makes it so much funnier

[danpuff-ao3]

violent ask game... 8, 10 and 12 pls? :)

Also... don't be scared, fandom is not half as violent as people imply... most of the time :)

Hello there! Thanks for these! 😄

8.) common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

Hmmm! My mind sort of immediately jumps to anti-shipping 😂 That's the biggest thing I would say is common to see that I would also call wrong. The only thing people's reading/writing preferences tell you is that they enjoy reading or writing that thing. That's it. No one's a bad person for reading/writing content that makes you uncomfortable.

10.) worst part of fanon

Gosh. Partly I think confusing fanon for canon but, specifically, when people are wrong and want to argue about it. Now I will admit I'm a big lover of "Snape as Draco's godfather." I know some people don't like it, and I understand why they don't, but I will eat it up like candy! However: I know it's not canon. Also: I'm not gonna fight anyone about it. AND: on the off chance I did spout nonsense and found out I was wrong, I wouldn't double down. I'd go fact check myself and be like "oops my bad, you right." It's bad enough when people wanna get up in arms over fandom of all things, but it's worse when you're doing it when you're WRONG.

12.) the unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

SNAPE. SNAPE. SEV-ER-US SNAPE.

This feels weird because I'm obviously in the Snapedom and am surrounded by much Snape love, but...I feel like he's a character people either love or hate with very little in between.

I stumble upon Snaters in the wild and get my feelings hurt because Severus Snape was my first love. (I read the books when I was like 7 and it was love at first sight, okay?) (And I turn 31 on Monday, if that tells you anything.)

Reddit post: "List of Reasons Snape is the WORST" me: yeah I know, don't you see why I love him??

For me it's sort of twofold. The best reason I can probably sell people with is that he's a complex character. The complexity gets lost a bit when people are so hellbent on painting the portrait of a "tragic hero" or a "terrible villain." Our man has layers, okay? Like an onion.

Is he nasty and rude and cruel? Yep. Is he also intelligent and passionate and devoted? Also yep. Did he do some really fucked up shit? Yep. Did he also do some really good deeds? Also yep. This man runs the dang spectrum! Join some blood supremacists? Yikes. Die in the war effort to save the world? Okay that part I don't want to talk about, I'm still not over it.

He had horrible, terrible things happen to him. He grew up in poverty. He was in a neglectful, if not abusive environment. He was bullied in school, and sexually assaulted. But he wasn't a "good" victim, see. He wasn't a sweet lil fella. He wasn't fragile; he was sharp. And he wasn't exactly likable; which made all attacks on him seemingly "excusable." So yeah, we can see why he went down a dark path. It's not okay by any means, but surely one can understand it.

And when it came down to it, he changed his mind. A lot of people nowadays can't do that. It's hard to change your ways, and say "hey I was wrong, I'm turning away from this now." But he did. And he put himself in danger to spy on Voldemort. And yeah, this very traumatized dude went on to traumatize other people. Hurt people hurt people, as they say. But he tried. He gave so much of his time and his life to righting his wrongs.

His life was spent in suffering. All the abuse he endured. The disdain. Then his own self-hatred when he realized where he went wrong. And those wounds never healed. He was forever haunted by his pain, and by his mistakes.

Which sort of leads me to my second point: he's not perfect. He's not an easy person to love. But he's so terribly human. He's just a man who was put through the crucible time and again. He wasn't perfect. He never became this handsome, flawless gentleman. There is so much to him! There is enough to judge and hate, sure, but there's also plenty to love. And this is such a strong case of....people aren't all good or bad. His good and his bad are both so clear! And I can't get enough of it, I stg. I love this man. Truly just adore him.

[moonlightdancer26]

A side effect from being in the Snapedom is forgetting that it’s homosapien and not homosnapien.

[snapeaddict]

Hi, what do you say to the people who claim Regulus is the real Slytherin hero, and not Snape? To me RAB always seemed like a plot device and nothing more so I don't get why he's being worshipped... He's just another rich pureblood kid...

I say this is a very bad take, and it is disrespectful (that's a strong word for something that isn't really important but I cannot think of a softer version) of the actual people who enjoy his character. I'm going to write down some thoughts, but there's more to it than just what I would reply to them - allow me to ramble a little on the roots of this claim and on the thought process embraced by Snaters and Marauders apologists (I've seen that some people don't like this term, so I mean people who erase the Marauders' flaws and make them morally superior to Snape, justifying them being abusers and him being abused.)

The nonsense of comparing a plot device to a complex, layered character: Comparing Severus and Regulus is ludicrous. You are comparing one of the most (I would argue the most well-written and complex, but Dumbledore is quite something as well) well-written, accomplished character of the books to a plot device. It is indeed what Regulus is, no matter if his character could have been really interesting/seems to be interesting: we know very little of him, and he exists solely for the Slytherin locket plot. The very little we know of him certainly isn't enough to express any critical judgment of his character; he is mostly made out of white pages which are filled out by his fans, which is great, and by the people making this kind of argument, which is unfortunate.

The interest in the character only stems in his usefulness: I would argue that the vast majority of people making this claim do not care at all for the character himself, despite using him as a moral high ground. It is not his character which interests them, but how useful he can be to fuel their hate and biased claims. His personality? Having being sorted in Slytherin. His merits? Being a Slytherin. This is the only fact that matters, because it allows them to 'prove' that Snape wasn't a hero (being a hero does not mean being a good person, by the way) and diminishes Severus' merits. Using a character solely for the purpose of depreciating, downgrading another is not appreciating them: it's just completely hypocritical. This is often the kind of flat argument used by people opposed to social justice movements, if you will allow the broad comparison: using something you have never cared for before (often minority populations) in an attempt to depreciate something, even though the very fact you are using them for this purpose shows how little concerned you are with the actual people you are talking about. Well, it reminds me of this a bit. The true purpose is to try and impose your own views, and here they try to legitimise them by filling an almost inexistent character with their views to carry on with their agenda.

The sudden leniency toward privileged characters: Making such a claim in fact once again proves that Snaters have an extremely biased, subjective and elitist vision of what being good means, an opinion on what is moral integrity (and superiority because they keep comparing people), which they also apply to James and Sirius. I think Regulus is loved because he is a Black, respected by the fandom because he comes from a pureblood, rich family. It is very easy to prove: look at how much love Draco and Lucius get, despite being supporters of blood supremacy, active members of a terrorist group, using discriminatory insults on a daily basis, being actively supportive of the murders of muggle borns/participating in these murders [do not misinterpret this - I'm pointing out double standards, not saying they should not be loved. One's interest in a character does not depend on the character's morals]. Look at how respected Snape was in the fandom before book 6, when people thought he was a rich pureblood from an ancient family. Social hierarchy has a great impact on how people view characters, and they tend to be much more lenient toward privileged characters, because prestige is attractive, even in fiction. Similarly - but it is more concealed - there is the usual refusal to acknowledge that social inequalities do impact one's life, choices, and opportunities to be or do good. The quote "You didn't make good choices! You had good choices" (Little Fires Everywhere) works quite well in this context, especially regarding James and Severus, but also regarding the Blacks versus Severus. Severus' survival was completely, utterly dependent on his adherence to blood supremacist values. This must be taken into account - but weirdly, this is an argument that is often used to prove Sirius' moral superiority, because his family required him to share their beliefs. This is ignoring that despite his difficulties, he still beneficiated from a support system and privileges that others did not have access to. Similarly, you cannot compare Regulus' and Severus' choices. And in my opinion, both are tragic; but if we had to take part in Snaters' silly arguments, then I would remind them that Regulus effectively had no obligation to join Voldemort, his parents were not death eaters. The pressure both characters experienced certainly wasn't of the same nature - even perhaps not of the same intensity. But does comparing them makes any sense, again...

The social biases: While Snape is blamed for his decision to join the death Eaters (rightly), Regulus is praised for his decision to leave them. While Regulus is pitied because he came from a family who brought him up with this ideology (just like Draco is), which apparently takes off all responsibility from him, Severus' background is never considered as a factor which pushed him right into extremists' opened arms. Regulus' privilege is used as an excuse; Snape's social disadvantage and familial issues are, at best, ignored, at worst, interpreted as proof of his inherently bad nature. Some people associate his upbringing with him being bad, whether they want to acknowledge it or not. While Regulus is headcanonned as handsome, Snape is constantly described as 'greasy' and 'ugly' by these same people, and you can see exactly how important appearances are to them. I'm even going to argue that worshipping a rich, handsome, privileged pureblood must sound better to them than being fond of the 'greasy git', and I am also saying these are mostly internalised biases. When you read these claims carefully, it sounds like in the mind of these people, Regulus is more legitimate as Slytherin's hero because he is better - inherently. And it is easy to see why.

The double-standards and their disturbing roots: This is also plainly ignoring the fact that Regulus and Snape defected for the same reasons, if we must make comparisons. Voldemort was targeting one of their loved ones, Kreatur for the former and Lily for the later, which made them realise, because they are humans and thus not selfless, how wrong his methods were when they turned against them. However, in Snape's case, turning against Voldemort in an attempt to save Lily is often held as proof of his selfishness/absence of morality: he wanted her for himself, he only deflected because someone he liked was in danger. In Regulus' case however, his gesture is seen as heroic and compassionate. Why? Well, there are a variety of reasons apart from Snaters' double standards, but I have noticed that most of them seem to think of Lily as 'belonging' to either James or Snape, and think Snape unworthy of having ever had Lily as a friend because of some kind of deep rooted flaws he had even as a child ('He tried to hurt Petunia with accidental magic when he was 11, he was always bad'. In fact I should make a post about how horrible this claim is.) In Regulus' case however, wanting to save Kreatur is seen as an act of compassion. Why? Not only because they want to make Regulus look better than Snape. I think it is also because Kreatur is a house-elf, an inferior being: Regulus' wish to protect him becomes praiseworthy, laudable, because house-elves do not really deserve consideration. So wanting to save him becomes an act of generosity. Even when you're not thinking of the double standards, this way of thinking is disturbing. Snape also turned against Voldemort at the age of 20, 21? Like Regulus did if I recall? They weren't death Eaters for very long. They both actively fought to bring Voldemort down. It would be tremendously hypocritical, wrong and plain bad faith to think of Regulus' action as superior to Snape's 20 years of hard work to bring Voldemort down.

So why can't Snape be a hero? I think this claim is a confession. To me it shows a very simplistic vision of heroism, of good and bad, of models, and a complete refusal to consider the grey, sometimes praise the grey- it's a failure to accept the complexity of the human functioning. Thinking that the people we praise for certain actions, or consider to be examples must be flawless is vain, simply because it is unrealistic, and we could not admire them/relate to them/like or dislike them/learn from them if they were not like us, layered and flawed - but this is exactly what this claim desperately wants us to believe. Or rather, what Snaters want to believe, while imposing their very biased views of good and bad, themselves rooted in prejudices. This is why they are using a character that is mostly inexistent: an empty, one dimensional character can fulfil this aim. This is also why so many people fail to appreciate characters such as James, Sirius and Remus without completely ripping off their flaws, and thus complexness - they cannot be loved if you can find fault in them.