#i need context to fully judge the unhinged levels

[ashtonsunshine]

The 5SOS Show Dusseldorf

via 5SOS instagram story. 28th September 2023

[quidfree]

Hi! Thinking of Dumbledore + Sirius, do you think Sirius would feel sympathy for Dumbledore if he knew about how torn he was btw his siblings + feeling trapped? I judged him harshly at first, but now I think about the difficulty about losing both parents + sibling, but not wanting to sacrifice everything to step in as parent + guilt that comes with that. I do think Dumbledore loved his siblings + I was happy when his bro said he did a good job with their sis before her death.

hi! this is an interesting one hm

the thing abt dumbledore is that i’m pretty sympathetic to him all things considered- i’ve never really taken the time to explain my feelings about him on here but i definitely don’t think he’s snape levels of “fandom should see he’s irredeemably terrible!”, though i have a lot of qualms about him. he’s certainly not the hero rowling thinks he is, but he’s also not the guy rita skeeter says he is, to put it succintly.

on the one hand, i do think canon mostly fails to acknowledge that he was very manipulative/calculating and made a lot of very cold (or just plain terrible) choices- everything to do with sirius, for one, as well as the whole dursley situation. i know there’s a couple of reasons harry had to live with them (supposedly...) and i can’t be bothered to go into them, but even then i never understood why he couldn’t have done to petunia what he does in OOTP (?) sooner- send a letter to scare the shit out of her and remind her to treat harry decently or at least leave him to his own devices. like, there was so much he could have done in the years between the potters’ deaths and hogwarts- that squib neighbour was already spying/reporting for him, so he was fully aware of it all, idk. i just find that whole thing exemplary of his callousness. it’s more unforgivable to me than raising harry knowing he might need to die for the cause- because that was necessary to defeat voldemort, but giving harry an escape from abuse was so avoidable. his handling of other characters also doesn’t paint him in the best light, sirius as most obvious suspect- there’s a good piece on tumblr about sirius being a liability in his eyes because he’s not loyal to dumbledore or his cause above all else, but to the potters (and ultimately harry) and his own code, and i really think it’s the best reading of dumbledore’s handling of sirius in OOTP, because i always found that kind of insane. it’s brain-dead obvious that the worst thing to do with sirius (especially if you were worried about his unhinged state and whatnot) would be sticking him in grimmauld place- even if they had to keep him hidden, they could have let him floo between order hideouts! see other people! prowl london as a dog! it’s insane that dumbledore of all people would be that dumb about it, so it makes the most sense to me as him locking sirius up where he’s the most contained.

on the other hand, dumbledore was both a quirky schoolmaster and a wartime militia leader, and i think a lot of the weirdness in his character is bc rowling set out to write a much more child-like series than she ended up writing. dumbledore is a pretty iconic guy in the books, manipulations included- he’s such a chessmaster, and he has flair, as kingsley would put it. most importantly he clearly tries very hard to orchestrate the best possible outcome for the entire world- not based on arbitrary beliefs or personal whims, but because he’s sort of the main bastion of hope in the wizarding world. i don’t necessarily think his actions in this context are all excusable, but he’s a war-time leader, and pretty much knows it’s all down to him- although the order is certainly competent, it’s a very ragtag group of people dumbledore holds together, and in terms of skill, knowledge and aura he’s their biggest asset. he’s already been through a wizarding war where he probably set out to murder the love of his life, another wizard supremacist wackjob! we know he’s long past egoism- he’s genuinely For The Greater Good, and he clearly cares about harry; his choices are undoubtedly not made lightly. it’s also important to note just how bad wizarding society as a whole is on these issues- even the most muggle-friendly wizards are remarkably ignorant about them (arthur weasley), and everyone else is at least marginally bigoted; bigotry is built into the fabric of their society, and their government is extemely complacent/corrupt, so the order and their ilk are very much on their own, while people like the malfoys are tolerated despite the open secret of their wartime alliances. dumbledore has a tough job, and he doesn’t know all the things the reader knows. so i think the op-eds calling him Just As Bad As Voldemort or whatever are missing any nuance.

then we get into dumbledore’s backstory. it explains a lot about him, i think. it’s interesting to me that he’s so consistent as a character- he has always been about The Greater Good, and he’s always had an ego, but as a child he let the latter dictate the former and as an adult he forever attempted to substract it from himself lest he repeat the same mistakes. some more questionable rep from ms rowling in having her (1) gay character be the guy literally seduced into wizard supremacy by his evil boyfriend, but i always liked that beat of a very isolated extremely intelligent character drawn into a warped sense of righteousness- it’s also very consistent of dumbledore to believe he’s doing the best for someone when he’s not really thinking about that at all, which is the case with his sister. obviously his family’s story is tragic, and then he gets pulled into this fake vision of a better world, validated in his brilliance, and then there’s his mother’s death, and then his sister, and suddenly it’s all come crashing down and he spends the next years of his life slowly realizing he’s the only one who can stop a project he might have been overseeing once. aberforth lays into him for it, and fair enough, but jesus, what a shitty spot to be in fresh out of hogwarts. i don’t know if it’s because i’m an older sibling, but i can understand the horrible burden of knowing that it’s always on you to think of yourself second, even when you’re inches away from the best thing in your life.

getting sidetracked- the question was about sirius and dumbledore. the thing abt LMV is that i try to keep my own opinions out of it; the marauders-dumbledore dynamic is a difficult one. they all respect him endlessly, and in school i think they adored him, but as a wartime leader it gets complicated. i think in canon their relationship was better, just a little strained (and a little more for others) bc of his style of leadership- you know, keeping secrets, playing games etc. in LMV, though, his machinations got them personally into some shit, so i wagered things would be more terse. james i think thinks most positively of him, as he is wont to do so, except where he is somehow at odds with sirius, because his loyalties there are clear and he is far more violently protective of sirius than he lets on. lily is a close second, because she’s a big picture thinker and gets how hard his job is, but she tends to be wary of his reasoning. remus is a more distrustful person by nature, and dumbledore using him for werewolf stuff wears him down. sirius is not a fan of authority, does not like secrets, and hates people using him as a pawn, so things are most strained for him, obviously. i think a lot of dumbledore introspection in LMV is from sirius’ POV, somewhat accidentally, so he gets a harsh rep.

to finally get to the specifics of your question: would dumbledore’s backstory get sirius to sympathise? arguably not much. sirius is a tricky guy, esp because i write him in a period that we know nothing about. he’s not a cocky slightly feral 15 year old, and he’s not a traumatised 30 something prison escapee; i try to get a plausible balance, so i don’t lend sirius in LMV so much of OOTP sirius’ world-weary wisdom. he’s 21, and in a war where the other side are wizard nazis he’s mostly related to somehow; he sees things in blacks and whites almost necessarily. so either you’re good or bad, trustworthy or not. peter crossed the threshold, so he’s dead to him; regulus turned himself in, but he’s one of them, so sirius doesn’t know what to do with him. sirius might understand how hard it is to have younger siblings you love fiercely who don’t understand your commitment to a higher goal, but dumbledore was on the wrong side of things that time, so i don’t think he would draw any sympathetic parallels- i don’t see why he of all people would feel bad for where dumbledore’s youthful aspirations of wizarding supremacy lead him, despite his good intentions. he’s not very forgiving of bigotry, i think especially because he’s cut all ties with his own background so harshly.

tldr; i feel for the guy, and his life was fucked, but sirius probably would not, and dumbledore got enough unwarranted hero worship considering his dodgy actions that i don’t resent sirius for holding that grudge.

[fierceawakening]

“Trump has said that he did not mean the statement the way it sounded. A common explanation by his defenders of aggressive and untoward remarks made by him in public settings is that what he said was a joke. This in no way discounts the dangerousness of his remark. In fact, his deeming the remark so lightly as to consider that it could be a joke would in itself be concerning. Moreover, his holding life-and-death matters themselves to be inconsequential may indicate serious pathology and risk—which cannot fully be ruled out without a detailed examination. This statement, in this context, exemplifies the “willingness to violate others” and the lack of empathy that characterize antisocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association 2016, pp. 659–60). In modern history, no other candidate for president of the United States has joked about his followers murdering his opponent.”

....

“A great danger to vulnerable groups and the potential for human rights abuses arise from the type of individuals Trump’s psychopathy leads him to look to for affirmation and support. Unable to tolerate criticism and perceived threats to his ego, and with a documented obsessive need to be admired, he has notably selected as his advisers either family members or people who, in clinical jargon, “enable” his illness. This is one of the more significant ways in which he has become a danger to others as president. Members of vulnerable communities often write and speak about grave concerns regarding those whom he is choosing to guide him. Using his proposed federal budget as a lens, Jessica González-Rojas writes, “It outlines President Trump’s spending priorities and program cuts that make clear his utter contempt for communities of color, and it edges this country and its moral compass closer to the nativist vision espoused by the likes of White House advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions” (González-Rojas 2017).”

....

“His mental health symptoms, including impulsive blame-shifting, claims of unearned superiority, and delusional levels of grandiosity, have been present in his words from his very first campaign speech: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people” (Elledge 2017). “I would build a Great Wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall, mark my words” (Gamboa 2015).”

....

“Trump’s unhinged response to court decisions, driven as they appear to be by paranoia, delusion, and a sense of entitlement, are of grave concern. While president of the United States, he has on more than one occasion questioned the legitimacy of the court, as in this example: “We had a very smooth roll-out,” he insisted, claiming that “the only problem with the [Muslim] ban was the ‘bad court’ that halted it” (Friedman, Sebastian, and Dibdin 2017). In February 2017, he tweeted, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

....

“A substantive change in the level of his dangerousness came with his assumption of the role of leader of the free world. Although an argument can be made that, by taking this office, he has shaken the global political structure to the extent that the U.S. presidency is rapidly losing that standing. His narcissistic traits (manifesting in blatant lying, impulsive and compulsive decision making against rational interests, and immature relational abilities) are creating a leadership gap that other political actors may well seek to fill. Yet, it is impossible for him, through the lens of his mental dysfunction, to evaluate his actual presentation and impact.”

[investmart007]

WASHINGTON | Democrats make final attempt to block Kavanaugh confirmation

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/uxpPK1

WASHINGTON | Democrats make final attempt to block Kavanaugh confirmation

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats mounted a last, ferocious attempt Thursday to paint Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a foe of abortion rights and a likely defender of President Donald Trump if he makes it to the high court. But their chances of blocking Trump’s nominee seemed to fade away by the end of a second marathon day of testimony in his confirmation hearing.

Questioning of the 53-year-old appellate judge wound down without him revealing much about his judicial stances or making any serious mistakes that might jeopardize his confirmation. In what almost seemed like a celebration, Kavanaugh’s two daughters returned to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room for the final hours of testimony, accompanied by teammates on Catholic school basketball teams their father has coached.

The hearing pivoted during the day to Roe v. Wade, the high court’s landmark abortion case. The Democrats’ best hope of stopping Kavanaugh — who could swing the court further the right for decades — would be branding him as a justice who might vote to overturn the ruling, attracting the votes of two Republican senators who support abortion rights.

A newly disclosed email suggested he once indicated the abortion case was not settled law, though Kavanaugh denied in the hearing that he had been expressing his personal views on the issue.

The tone in the email from 2003 contrasted with his responses to questions on Wednesday when he stressed how difficult it is to overturn precedents like Roe. In the email, Kavanaugh was reviewing a potential op-ed article in support of two judicial nominees while he was working at the George W. Bush White House. The document had been held by the committee as confidential, but was made public Thursday.

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,” Kavanaugh wrote, referring to justices at the time, in an email to a Republican Senate aide. The document was partially redacted.

Asked about it by the committee’s top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California, Kavanaugh reiterated his previous testimony that “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court.”

Democrats also hammered at Kavanaugh’s ability to separate himself from Trump and special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Throughout his testimony, Kavanaugh has repeatedly insisted he fully embraces the importance of judicial independence.

Campaigning in Montana Thursday night, Trump said Kavanaugh deserves bipartisan support and criticized the “anger and the meanness on the other side— it’s sick.”

In the hearing room, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois put the focus on Trump, who Durbin said, “has shown contempt for the federal judiciary and has shown disrespect for the rule of law over and over again.”

“It’s in the context of the Trump presidency that we ask you these questions,” Durbin said.

Kavanaugh refused to answer questions about Trump or commit to stepping aside from any case about the Russia investigation that might come to the Supreme Court. When Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut invited him to denounce Trump’s criticism of federal judges, the nominee demurred.

“The way we stand up is by deciding cases and controversies independently without fear or favor,” Kavanaugh said.

Earlier, he said his 12-year record as an appellate judge shows that he has not been afraid to invalidate executive branch actions.

Kavanaugh said that he has made clear that a court order “that requires a president to do something or prohibits a president from doing something … is the final word in our system.”

Late Wednesday evening, Kavanaugh seemed to stumble at first when questioned by Democrat Kamala Harris of California about whom he might have spoken with at a law firm concerning the investigation into Russian election meddling. The firm in question was founded by Marc Kasowitz, who has represented Trump.

Kavanaugh eventually said he couldn’t think of any such conversations but would need to see a list of the firm’s lawyers. In questioning Thursday, he said more directly that he had no such conversations.

On a separate track, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Durbin have led the charge in suggesting that Kavanaugh misled them in earlier testimony, an allegation the nominee firmly denied with the enthusiastic backing of Senate Republicans.

Much of the debate among senators has focused more on the disclosure of documents than on Kavanaugh’s record.

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, along with Harris — both potential presidential candidates in 2020 — said he was willing to risk fallout over releasing confidential documents about Kavanaugh’s views on race. Republican John Cornyn of Texas warned him that senators could be expelled for violating confidentially rules. Democrats and Booker responded, “Bring it on.”

In fact, some of the documents the Democrats wanted disclosed had been released hours earlier, in a pre-dawn disclosure approved by Bill Burck, the GOP attorney who serves as presidential records lawyer for Bush.

“We were surprised to learn about Senator Booker’s histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly,” Burck said by email. Booker had sought release late Wednesday, after questioning Kavanaugh on race and drawing rebuke from his colleagues for disclosing the confidential documents. They were made available after 3 a.m. Thursday.

Booker’s spokeswoman said that only by raising the issue publicly was the senator able to “shame the committee into agreeing” to release the pages to the public.

The document battle stemmed from Kavanaugh’s unusually long paper trail following his years in the Bush White House. The panel’s process resulted in hundreds of thousands of pages of Kavanaugh’s documents being withheld as confidential or kept from release under presidential privilege by the Trump White House.

Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who released more documents Thursday, stood by his handling of the issue.

“My process was fair,” Grassley declared.

Protesters have repeatedly tried to interrupt the hearing, which has carried strong political overtones ahead of the November congressional elections.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell dismissed the protesters’ “unhinged antics” as powerless to stop Trump’s choice. “There’s no hecklers’ veto,” he said.

Republicans hope to confirm Kavanaugh in time for the first day of the new Supreme Court term, Oct. 1.

By MARK SHERMAN and LISA MASCARO, Associated Press