Harry Potter What's with all the hate for the word "muggle"

[Drawde]

If a shrinking charm reduces the weight of an object, it HAS to reduce mass as well. Unless the shrinking charm is also a weight reducing charm at the same time.

As for my question above Garahs, it works both ways. People keep assuming that Hagrid either made it up or it's what he's been taught. We don't know that it wasn't what happened, or that it did.

 

[WhiteKnightLeo]

If a shrinking charm reduces the weight of an object, it HAS to reduce mass as well. Unless the shrinking charm is also a weight reducing charm at the same time.

As for my question above Garahs, it works both ways. People keep assuming that Hagrid either made it up or it's what he's been taught. We don't know that it wasn't what happened, or that it did.

Intuitor.com discusses the issue of changing size v changing mass for the "Honey, I ___ the Kids" films. He pointed out that removing molecules to reduce the size of something would be extremely dangerous, especially in living things, and trying to compress them would cause pressure issues. So it's not exactly clear what the Shrinking Charm does, nor the Engorgement Charm.

If you enlarge a spider, where does the extra mass come from? How do you make it fit properly into the now-larger body, is it proportional? How does a super-size spider walk, when the mass of the spider would increase much faster than the load-bearing capacity of its legs?

Oh well, logic into magic.
It does beg the question of whether any spells HAVE to do a certain thing to accomplish their goals.

 

[Master of Squirrel-Fu]

If a shrinking charm reduces the weight of an object, it HAS to reduce mass as well.? Unless the shrinking charm is also a weight reducing charm at the same time.

As for my question above Garahs, it works both ways.? People keep assuming that Hagrid either made it up or it's what he's been taught.? We don't know that it wasn't what happened, or that it did.

Intuitor.com discusses the issue of changing size v changing mass for the "Honey, I ___ the Kids" films. He pointed out that removing molecules to reduce the size of something would be extremely dangerous, especially in living things, and trying to compress them would cause pressure issues. So it's not exactly clear what the Shrinking Charm does, nor the Engorgement Charm.

If you enlarge a spider, where does the extra mass come from? How do you make it fit properly into the now-larger body, is it proportional? How does a super-size spider walk, when the mass of the spider would increase much faster than the load-bearing capacity of its legs?

Oh well, logic into magic.
It does beg the question of whether any spells HAVE to do a certain thing to accomplish their goals.

It's simple, rather than shrinking the object it simply shrinks the space that the object occupies. The object itself is still technically the same mass and density, it's just relative to the universe it's now "smaller".

...I just confused myself.

 

[Chuckg]

I'm reminded of that scene from Peter David's "Hulk: Future Imperfect", where the Maestro and his grand vizier got into a discussion of the temporal paradoxes surrounding the past-time Hulk showing up to confront, and possibly be killed by, his future self.

It ended on these two lines:

"... I think I'm getting a headache."

"That is a hazard of time-travel theorizing, yes."

Discussing the physics of magic seems to be similarily fraught with cranial peril.

 

[Master of Squirrel-Fu]

I'm reminded of that scene from Peter David's "Hulk: Future Imperfect", where the Maestro and his grand vizier got into a discussion of the temporal paradoxes surrounding the past-time Hulk showing up to confront, and possibly be killed by, his future self.

It ended on these two lines:

"... I think I'm getting a headache."

"That is a hazard of time-travel theorizing, yes."

Discussing the physics of magic seems to be similarily fraught with cranial peril.

It's simply that our languages have yet to evolve enough to verbally express their paradoxical nature without running into an infinite loop.

It's like trying to describe an entirely new color, you can see it, you can understand it, it's just that we yet to have created a word to describe it.

 

[Lord Raine]

A question on Hagrid's comment on why wizards hide from muggles.

Was his comment speculation or fact? In other words was this just the standard reason that the wizards themselves were given, or did it actually happen in the past?

It would be opinion if anyone else had ever weighed in on the matter, but no one ever did. Hagrid was the only person who ever talked about it, and nothing that was ever said, done, or shown in the books ever contradicted him.

In light of absolutely nothing whatsoever to the contrary, we have to take it as fact. That is 'the' reason why wizards are still hiding from muggles. Not because they're scared (though they probably should be). Because they're lazy, and don't want to be asked to help deal with world problems like everyone else on the planet.

Discussing the physics of magic seems to be similarily fraught with cranial peril.

The greatest and most powerful wizards in history didn't have an ounce of logic or deductive reasoning to their names. That's canon. It's entirely possible that magic, by it's very nature, is ultimately incomprehensible and imperturbable, and may even be fueled by a kind of reality-warping disconnect between how things are supposed to work and how you perceive you want them to work.

That could explain why effects that should be hellishly complicated if not impossible (like shrinking and expanding things) are actually extremely simple, whereas something that is, strictly speaking, not all that difficult to manage (bringing someone who died back to life) is supposedly impossible. Death is viewed as being unbeatable, so naturally magic that is aimed at doing that always fails, because you can't cheat death. By the same token, changing something's size, weight, and relative mass seems as though it would be fairly simple and straightforward (even though it would be a complex snarl of nightmare physics that could potentially blow up the planet or rend the fabric of space if done incorrectly), and therefore, it is simple and straightforward, because a human mind is able to effortlessly grasp and accept the idea of something getting larger or smaller.

In essence, the actual mechanics behind the spell are completely irrelevant. Simple spells can and do have ridiculous implications in how they violate the realms of physics, whereas other kinds of magic that are really just chemicals and electric signals (like life, or love) are untouchable and immutable things that magic cannot meddle with.

While Magic has been off breaking all the rules of Science, Science has been busy breaking all the rules of Magic.

 

[Drawde]

Or that they have a valid reason. What I keep trying to say is that NEITHER reason is canon. Nothing in canon says that their reason is valid. And nothing in canon says it's invalid.

We can't assume that the reason we belive is the only valid one.

 

[daniel_gudman]

Well considering the nature of the wizarding world...

Maybe they DON'T have a valid reason. It's the status quo, so rationalizations exist, and that's all.

The Masquerade exists, and no one really cares why.

 

[MTing]

So, from the answers to my question, I think it proved the personal and political theories.

There aren't much that you want from a wizard

Military's would be all over magic, but it would become a really fast escalating situation, with a magical cold war.

The Global level theory was dis-proven by Lord Raine and Chuck. Nations would love access to clean water and endless energy (Magic Fire).

However, from this we can conclude that Hagrid's comment is both true and untrue. An average person do not need magic while the government and army would want magic, thus causing Nations to want magic.

New Question:

Does the Wizarding world screw over every Muggleborn to that enters into it? I am focusing on the general education, abilities, general culture and Muggleborn's future outlook.

Fact: The Culture in the Wizarding World is mostly negative towards Muggles in General.
Fact: During puberty, your friends and peers of your age group are more important than your family
Fact: The Wizarding Population is small in comparision to the rest of the world.
Fact: We have never seen any class that teaches writing, mathematics or reading comprehension
Fact: You stay in Hogwarts during the Fall, Winter and Spring to learn and you go home during Summer

Analysis:
Any muggleborn that enters this world has most likely left regular school. Thus causing a decrease in general knowledge (Algebra, Science, History, etc). A child of 11 has friends that are built around their school, leaving the muggle school for Hogwarts causes the child to lose their muggle friends. Their new "friends" will be the people in Hogwarts, the people they interact with on a day to day basis. They will have a harder time relating to their muggle friends, since they leave for Hogwarts for 9 months at a time. The ability to speak about current news or how they are doing is greatly hindered.

At best, the culture is one of curiosity, like the study of a special bipedal animal (Arthur Weasley). At worst, Malfoy's racism. Any child that grows up in WW will have subconsciously and consciously adopted this culture. This means that an Muggleborn in Hogwarts will soon learn not to talk about their Muggle interest, from their peer group's lack of interest, lack of understanding or just your own lack of patience to explain the concept.

The Wizarding World is small, since there aren't that many wizards in it. This means that Wizards use magic to make up for the lack of people. Wizards use magic to clean, to fix, to cook, and a whole host of other jobs. A person trying to find a job that isnÆt inherently dangerous would be hard in the WW as most ôsafeö jobs, magic has covered. Any person looking for a job would either have to work in the Ministry, be an assistant to a shopkeeper, be an entrepreneur or go out looking for more dangerous jobs (Dragon Keeping, Curse Breaking).

So, at age 11, MugglebornÆs lose everything they are familiar with, having to make a whole new set of friends while being submerged in a new culture. They lose out on their current friends, and have a skill set that will not help them in the Muggle World. Best example of this, Look at Hermione. Any normal person who almost got killed at their school would switch schools. Any person who was being discriminated against would complain to teachers or switch schools (Canonically, she did neither). She was so immersed in the culture that at 17, she called her own parents ôMugglesö and wiped their memories. She ended up marrying and staying in the Wizarding World.

What do you think? Does the WW take normal people and brainwash them? Making them in a world disconnected with the current times?

 

[Amberion]

Food can't be made from scratch, but it can be multiplied out indefinitely from food that already exists, and be completely valid. So that's infinite free food for everyone who needs it. There are multiple spells (Aqua Eructo, Aguamenti) that conjure pure, clear water from nothing, so that's infinite free, clean, pollution-free water for everyone as well, which solves all the water shortage problems undeveloped countries are having, and also means, strictly speaking, you'll never have to pay for water ever again, or if you do, the price of your bills will be incredibly deflated.

Will you then employ all those people that are now out of work? Seriously, with how much you go on about the wizards should help people, I wonder why you are posting here and not out helping homeless people or other people in need.

And to the one that said that "us" muggles do alright, we aren't. We are slowly destroying our planet, and have been the last 100 years.

MTing:

Any person who was being discriminated against would complain to teachers or switch schools (Canonically, she did neither). She was so immersed in the culture that at 17, she called her own parents ôMugglesö and wiped their memories. She ended up marrying and staying in the Wizarding World.

The discriminating part first. Most people actually never tell teachers when that happens.

And for the other part, most muggleborn end up living in the magical world. You got to remember that we only see a really tiny part of the magical world.

 

[ilalthal]

So, from the answers to my question, I think it proved the personal and political theories.

There aren't much that you want from a wizard

Military's would be all over magic, but it would become a really fast escalating situation, with a magical cold war.

The Global level theory was dis-proven by Lord Raine and Chuck. Nations would love access to clean water and endless energy (Magic Fire).

However, from this we can conclude that Hagrid's comment is both true and untrue. An average person do not need magic while the government and army would want magic, thus causing Nations to want magic.

New Question:

Does the Wizarding world screw over every Muggleborn to that enters into it? I am focusing on the general education, abilities, general culture and Muggleborn's future outlook.

Fact: The Culture in the Wizarding World is mostly negative towards Muggles in General.
Fact: During puberty, your friends and peers of your age group are more important than your family
Fact: The Wizarding Population is small in comparision to the rest of the world.
Fact: We have never seen any class that teaches writing, mathematics or reading comprehension
Fact: You stay in Hogwarts during the Fall, Winter and Spring to learn and you go home during Summer

Analysis:
Any muggleborn that enters this world has most likely left regular school. Thus causing a decrease in general knowledge (Algebra, Science, History, etc). A child of 11 has friends that are built around their school, leaving the muggle school for Hogwarts causes the child to lose their muggle friends. Their new "friends" will be the people in Hogwarts, the people they interact with on a day to day basis. They will have a harder time relating to their muggle friends, since they leave for Hogwarts for 9 months at a time. The ability to speak about current news or how they are doing is greatly hindered.

At best, the culture is one of curiosity, like the study of a special bipedal animal (Arthur Weasley). At worst, Malfoy's racism. Any child that grows up in WW will have subconsciously and consciously adopted this culture. This means that an Muggleborn in Hogwarts will soon learn not to talk about their Muggle interest, from their peer group's lack of interest, lack of understanding or just your own lack of patience to explain the concept.

The Wizarding World is small, since there aren't that many wizards in it. This means that Wizards use magic to make up for the lack of people. Wizards use magic to clean, to fix, to cook, and a whole host of other jobs. A person trying to find a job that isnÆt inherently dangerous would be hard in the WW as most ôsafeö jobs, magic has covered. Any person looking for a job would either have to work in the Ministry, be an assistant to a shopkeeper, be an entrepreneur or go out looking for more dangerous jobs (Dragon Keeping, Curse Breaking).

So, at age 11, MugglebornÆs lose everything they are familiar with, having to make a whole new set of friends while being submerged in a new culture. They lose out on their current friends, and have a skill set that will not help them in the Muggle World. Best example of this, Look at Hermione. Any normal person who almost got killed at their school would switch schools. Any person who was being discriminated against would complain to teachers or switch schools (Canonically, she did neither). She was so immersed in the culture that at 17, she called her own parents ôMugglesö and wiped their memories. She ended up marrying and staying in the Wizarding World.

What do you think? Does the WW take normal people and brainwash them? Making them in a world disconnected with the current times?

Does the Wizarding world screw over every Muggleborn to that enters into it? I am focusing on the general education, abilities, general culture and Muggleborn's future outlook.

Fact: The Culture in the Wizarding World is mostly negative towards Muggles in General.
no more negative then most americains are to thirdworld african countrys, most poeole dont give a fuck since it has little to no impact on their lives, theres some well meaning people who care and some crazy fucks who hate everything(kkk, most white pride)the kkk guys just happin to be the main villians and get the most screen time because of that.

Fact: During puberty, your friends and peers of your age group are more important than your family
fuck, have you been near a high school in the last two decades? this has to be the most realistic thing in the books and the boarding school part of it just makes it worse
Fact: The Wizarding Population is small in comparision to the rest of the world.
yes, before the big jump to 6 billion+ it was small, now its outrigt pueny in comparision

Fact: We have never seen any class that teaches writing, mathematics or reading comprehension
not really, but considering the written assignments, the measurements needed for potions and things like that division based math and the course books it all must happen somewhere. the reading writing and basic math are taught off screen, which makes a bit of sense to me Hogworts is where you PAY for your childern to learn magic, not literacy. that should be taken care of before then. but the books are about harry potter, not a standard wizarding childhood.

Fact: You stay in Hogwarts during the Fall, Winter and Spring to learn and you go home during Summer
yes, they obviously need downtime to restock and maintain the school just as the childern need time with their familys


simply put I think the hogwarts letter is equal parts invitation to wizard schoo and invitation to be a wizard. if you dont want to be a wizard dont go to wizard school.
also, petuna was envious of her sister becaose she could do magic and her parents thought it was awesome. there was no indication that lily drifted apart from her parents due to going to hogwarts. just thats its petunas excuse for being a bitch.

 

[WhiteKnightLeo]

..........
We are slowly destroying our planet, and have been the last 100 years.
....

This is a completely arbitrary and unsupported assumption, not an empirical observation.

 

[Amberion]

..........
We are slowly destroying our planet, and have been the last 100 years.
....

This is a completely arbitrary and unsupported assumption, not an empirical observation.

Not really, well unless pollution in the air and seas have been found to be good now. Never heard anyone saying that though.

Might not be the fastest way and probably never kill all living things on earth, but it is slowly destroying it if nothing changes. And since money runs the world, i.e. big corporations, I don't see that changing too soon.

Then we have the population increase, which means we have to clear land for more crops and animals. Sooner or later we won't have the land mass to support the worlds population.

And while it might be my opinion, it is based on facts. Who knows, maybe in the future we get the technology where we can just press a button and fix everything. But as it is now, we can't, or rather won't, since we like our living standards.

 

[WhiteKnightLeo]

..........
We are slowly destroying our planet, and have been the last 100 years.
....

This is a completely arbitrary and unsupported assumption, not an empirical observation.

Not really, well unless pollution in the air and seas have been found to be good now. Never heard anyone saying that though.

Might not be the fastest way and probably never kill all living things on earth, but it is slowly destroying it if nothing changes. And since money runs the world, i.e. big corporations, I don't see that changing too soon.

Then we have the population increase, which means we have to clear land for more crops and animals. Sooner or later we won't have the land mass to support the worlds population.

And while it might be my opinion, it is based on facts. Who knows, maybe in the future we get the technology where we can just press a button and fix everything. But as it is now, we can't, or rather won't, since we like our living standards.

Population increase? You haven't been following the birthrate statistics for the last 30 years then, have you? Israel and the US are the only first-world nations that have an above-replacement birthrate (and ours just barely); every other first-world nation is steadily losing people, and birthrates are falling everywhere else (even in Muslim-majority nations). Most likely we are going to hit a horizontal asymptote in about 50 years.

Repeat after me:

The first census for Britain wasn't taken until AFTER Thomas Malthus developed his overpopulation hypothesis (meaning his idea had NO empirical support whatsoever). The censuses that have been taken since have disproven his hypothesis. There is no nation ON EARTH whose per-capita standard of living was higher when its population was lower. Less than 1% of America's population can grow enough food to feed all of us; it used to take 90%.

Most of modern agricultural research has been in increasing per-acre yields; that research has been wildly successful, through the use of precision irrigation, improved pesticides and herbicides, and of course breeding programs and GM crops. All of these have massively reduced the need for additional cropland in the nations that practice them (namely the US). Wheat, for example, used to get 1-3 bushels per acre; last figure I heard for the average was 100.

Pollution? It is not clear AT ALL that there are any significant negative effects of increasing concentrations of CO2, and there are several positive ones (evidence: total forest area in the US is higher now than it was in 1900, due partially to law changes and partially to CO2 increases). SO2 has had caps put on it; given that it is a proven toxin, that was a justifiable law. Other pollutants are falling (on a per yield basis) as technology improves.

I'm not going to mention corporations. Why? Because that debate would take 5 years. So I'm not going to bother. The way you approach this issue is sufficient for me to not bother with that aspect.

So no, it is not based on facts. It is based on a widely-carried narrative; but this narrative is repeated for political reasons, not for empirical ones. This is why a number of global warming advocates have admitted in writing that the hypothesis is "faith-based science". Global warming is on the same empirical and scientific side as intelligent design, creation science, flat-earth theory and phlogiston; it is not on the same side as evolution.

 

[Amberion]

..........
We are slowly destroying our planet, and have been the last 100 years.
....

This is a completely arbitrary and unsupported assumption, not an empirical observation.

Not really, well unless pollution in the air and seas have been found to be good now. Never heard anyone saying that though.

Might not be the fastest way and probably never kill all living things on earth, but it is slowly destroying it if nothing changes. And since money runs the world, i.e. big corporations, I don't see that changing too soon.

Then we have the population increase, which means we have to clear land for more crops and animals. Sooner or later we won't have the land mass to support the worlds population.

And while it might be my opinion, it is based on facts. Who knows, maybe in the future we get the technology where we can just press a button and fix everything. But as it is now, we can't, or rather won't, since we like our living standards.

Population increase? You haven't been following the birthrate statistics for the last 30 years then, have you? Israel and the US are the only first-world nations that have an above-replacement birthrate (and ours just barely); every other first-world nation is steadily losing people, and birthrates are falling everywhere else (even in Muslim-majority nations). Most likely we are going to hit a horizontal asymptote in about 50 years.

Repeat after me:

The first census for Britain wasn't taken until AFTER Thomas Malthus developed his overpopulation hypothesis (meaning his idea had NO empirical support whatsoever). The censuses that have been taken since have disproven his hypothesis. There is no nation ON EARTH whose per-capita standard of living was higher when its population was lower. Less than 1% of America's population can grow enough food to feed all of us; it used to take 90%.

Most of modern agricultural research has been in increasing per-acre yields; that research has been wildly successful, through the use of precision irrigation, improved pesticides and herbicides, and of course breeding programs and GM crops. All of these have massively reduced the need for additional cropland in the nations that practice them (namely the US). Wheat, for example, used to get 1-3 bushels per acre; last figure I heard for the average was 100.

Pollution? It is not clear AT ALL that there are any significant negative effects of increasing concentrations of CO2, and there are several positive ones (evidence: total forest area in the US is higher now than it was in 1900, due partially to law changes and partially to CO2 increases). SO2 has had caps put on it; given that it is a proven toxin, that was a justifiable law. Other pollutants are falling (on a per yield basis) as technology improves.

I'm not going to mention corporations. Why? Because that debate would take 5 years. So I'm not going to bother. The way you approach this issue is sufficient for me to not bother with that aspect.

So no, it is not based on facts. It is based on a widely-carried narrative; but this narrative is repeated for political reasons, not for empirical ones. This is why a number of global warming advocates have admitted in writing that the hypothesis is "faith-based science". Global warming is on the same empirical and scientific side as intelligent design, creation science, flat-earth theory and phlogiston; it is not on the same side as evolution.

I never said anything about global warming. I know of many cases though where they tell people not to eat x or y, because the toxic levels are to high.

And yes, they agree to lower it if I remember correctly. But most experts pretty much said it was a useless agreement.

The US releases 3 million tons toxic into the environment per year. Even if they lowered that by 50%, it would not make the air and waters cleaner, it would just mean the increase isn't as fast.

You should read on WHO how many percent they estimate die because of pollution.

As for population increase, the estimated numbers varies, but I haven't seen any place that estimate us to be less then 9,000,000,000 by 2050.

Anyway, why did you think I was talking about global warming? No one has died of a direct cause by that yet i think. But a shitload of people have died because of pollution.

 

[Chuckg]

The US releases 3 million tons toxic into the environment per year. Even if they lowered that by 50%, it would not make the air and waters cleaner, it would just mean the increase isn't as fast. (emphasis mine)

The part I bolded would be true if and only if toxins were never removed from the environment, by decomposition or any other chemical or natural process.

Some toxins never degrade, no. Emphasis: some.

What toxins, precisely, are you referring to?

 

[Amberion]

The US releases 3 million tons toxic into the environment per year. Even if they lowered that by 50%, it would not make the air and waters cleaner, it would just mean the increase isn't as fast. (emphasis mine)

The part I bolded would be true if and only if toxins were never removed from the environment, by decomposition or any other chemical or natural process.

Some toxins never degrade, no. Emphasis: some.

What toxins, precisely, are you referring to?

True, I know a lot of toxins break down after awhile. But you would have to reduce the pollution a hell of a lot more then 50%. And even then, it would take a decade or two before we would notice the level going down.

As for what toxin I was talking about.. No specific one really, I kinda clumped them all together.

 

[Chuckg]

Well, since ending modern industrial civilization requires circa 90% of the planet's population to die of starvation, I'll stick with what we got, toxins and all, thanks.

 

[daniel_gudman]

You know, not to get too pedantic, but...

A "toxin" is a class of "poison". So, it's a molecule that was specifically created to be harmful and interfere with metabolism.

What you guys are talking about is... way more vague that that.

Further, "toxin" refers only to substances produced inside the cells of living organisms. It is technically incorrect to refer to artificial or industrial chemicals as "toxins", although a lot of people do so.

Some toxins never degrade, no. Emphasis: some.

This is manifestly impossible.

...

I want to have some examples of what is meant by "toxins".

Sulfates? Phosphates? Nitrates? chlorinated vinyl polymers? fullerenes? heavy metals?

Anyway,

If it's "fertilizer run off", the problem is we're destabilizing ecosystems by dumping so much microbe food into them. Well, or we're pushing down the pH by introducing all these anionic functional groups.

 

[Antitwilight]

I've just been reading "Help of a Seer" by Aealket and it once again had Harry's side stating they hate the term "muggle" and wanting to come up with something new like "non-magical" or "mundane". What's the big deal about it? I can understand and agree with hating the term "mudblood", but muggle is just the word meaning non-magical.

I realize that it is directly analogous to the terms for people with dark skin colors originally found in Africa. Originally the generic, non-insulting term was "Negro", with "Nigger" being the insulting term. Then they thought "Negro" was too closely assocaited with slavery, so they rechristened the word "Colored" to mean them. Then, after getting rid of segregation, they decided that the word "Colored" was too closely associated with segregation, so they decided to call them "Blacks". Now, for reasons I'm completely baffled by, they've decided that calling them "Black" is offensive, and now should be called "African American", (although what such people who are citizens of Canada, or England, should be called I'm not sure).

I see hating the term "Muggle" as no different from hating the term "Black", although I acknowledge it's probably more like hating the term "Colored".

What's with all the hatred of a simple word?

I suspect it's because Rowling made her wizards into a privileged caste of quirky, creative, special people, and then slapped everybody else with a label that sounds like a portmanteau of "ugly" and "muddled" (or, according to the wiki, a condescending diminutive of "mug"). Non-magicals are then represented by the Dursleys, just to make sure we get the message.

 

[Prince Charon]

I've just been reading "Help of a Seer" by Aealket and it once again had Harry's side stating they hate the term "muggle" and wanting to come up with something new like "non-magical" or "mundane". What's the big deal about it? I can understand and agree with hating the term "mudblood", but muggle is just the word meaning non-magical.

I realize that it is directly analogous to the terms for people with dark skin colors originally found in Africa. Originally the generic, non-insulting term was "Negro", with "Nigger" being the insulting term. Then they thought "Negro" was too closely assocaited with slavery, so they rechristened the word "Colored" to mean them. Then, after getting rid of segregation, they decided that the word "Colored" was too closely associated with segregation, so they decided to call them "Blacks". Now, for reasons I'm completely baffled by, they've decided that calling them "Black" is offensive, and now should be called "African American", (although what such people who are citizens of Canada, or England, should be called I'm not sure).

I see hating the term "Muggle" as no different from hating the term "Black", although I acknowledge it's probably more like hating the term "Colored".

What's with all the hatred of a simple word?

I suspect it's because Rowling made her wizards into a privileged caste of quirky, creative, special people, and then slapped everybody else with a label that sounds like a portmanteau of "ugly" and "muddled" (or, according to the wiki, a condescending diminutive of "mug"). Non-magicals are then represented by the Dursleys, just to make sure we get the message.

Probably the best explanation (though most wizards & witches aren't wonderfully creative).

 

[Obfuscated]

I've just been reading "Help of a Seer" by Aealket and it once again had Harry's side stating they hate the term "muggle" and wanting to come up with something new like "non-magical" or "mundane". What's the big deal about it? I can understand and agree with hating the term "mudblood", but muggle is just the word meaning non-magical.

I realize that it is directly analogous to the terms for people with dark skin colors originally found in Africa. Originally the generic, non-insulting term was "Negro", with "Nigger" being the insulting term. Then they thought "Negro" was too closely assocaited with slavery, so they rechristened the word "Colored" to mean them. Then, after getting rid of segregation, they decided that the word "Colored" was too closely associated with segregation, so they decided to call them "Blacks". Now, for reasons I'm completely baffled by, they've decided that calling them "Black" is offensive, and now should be called "African American", (although what such people who are citizens of Canada, or England, should be called I'm not sure).

I see hating the term "Muggle" as no different from hating the term "Black", although I acknowledge it's probably more like hating the term "Colored".

What's with all the hatred of a simple word?

In the wizarding world of HP the terms 'normal', 'ordinary' or 'mundane' would be the correct equivalent for 'black' addressing non-magical persons/affairs/matters.

'Muggle' stands in line with 'tar baby' or 'coon' or certain pronounciations of 'black' & 'colored'.

 

[Master of Squirrel-Fu]

I've just been reading "Help of a Seer" by Aealket and it once again had Harry's side stating they hate the term "muggle" and wanting to come up with something new like "non-magical" or "mundane". What's the big deal about it? I can understand and agree with hating the term "mudblood", but muggle is just the word meaning non-magical.

I realize that it is directly analogous to the terms for people with dark skin colors originally found in Africa. Originally the generic, non-insulting term was "Negro", with "Nigger" being the insulting term. Then they thought "Negro" was too closely assocaited with slavery, so they rechristened the word "Colored" to mean them. Then, after getting rid of segregation, they decided that the word "Colored" was too closely associated with segregation, so they decided to call them "Blacks". Now, for reasons I'm completely baffled by, they've decided that calling them "Black" is offensive, and now should be called "African American", (although what such people who are citizens of Canada, or England, should be called I'm not sure).

I see hating the term "Muggle" as no different from hating the term "Black", although I acknowledge it's probably more like hating the term "Colored".

What's with all the hatred of a simple word?

In the wizarding world of HP the terms 'normal', 'ordinary' or 'mundane' would be the correct equivalent for 'black' addressing non-magical persons/affairs/matters.

'Muggle' stands in line with 'tar baby' or 'coon' or certain pronounciations of 'black' & 'colored'.

Is it racist that I lol'd at Tar baby?

 

[jwang]

Not at all, as long as you also laugh at every other racial slurs as well. I myself use every slur possible so I can be equally offensive to everyone. They can't call me racist if I'm insulting everyone!

 

[Master of Squirrel-Fu]

Not at all, as long as you also laugh at every other racial slurs as well. I myself use every slur possible so I can be equally offensive to everyone. They can't call me racist if I'm insulting everyone!

It has nothing to do with black people, i just find the absurdness of it hilarious.