Чё-т теперь ору ещё хуже)

Summary of the Critical Comments
Harry’s Reaction to Quirrell:
The commenter mocks Harry’s enthusiastic response ("orgasms from how someone praises his silliness") to Quirrell’s speech, suggesting it’s irrational and driven by vanity rather than critical thought.

Quirrell’s Speech:
They question the speech’s "inspiring" nature, arguing its rebellious tone ("fat, overpaid, Auror-guarded politicians") appeals to childish impulses rather than reason. They find it suspicious that a teacher would dismiss the curriculum without clear justification or mention of responsibility.

Harry’s Character Flaws:
Harry is portrayed as power-hungry and naive, blindly excited by promises of showing off his abilities (e.g., army games over Quidditch) despite his supposed rationality. The commenter imagines this as Yudkowsky’s revenge fantasy, not a coherent character arc.

Rationality Failures:
They note Harry doesn’t question Quirrell’s motives or the relevance of "Battle Magic" to DADA, missing obvious red flags (e.g., no focus on Apparition, no discussion of consequences). This undermines HPMOR’s rationalist ethos.

Textual Intent and Charisma:
The commenter speculates the scene shows Harry’s pride blinding him, per Umberto Eco’s "intention of the text." They question its necessity, its alignment with HPMOR’s goals, and why Harry doesn’t later reflect critically on Quirrell’s weak arguments (unlike Hitler’s interlocutors). They ask if this is meant to depict charisma—and if so, whether it undercuts the story’s message.

Broader Critique:
If HPMOR promotes rationality but shows its hero consistently failing to spot the villain (Quirrell) and making poor decisions, the commenter argues it discredits its own premise.