If self-righteous Chads/Staceys go to Gryffindor and evil people go to Slytherin...

If self-righteous Chads/Staceys go to Gryffindor and evil people go to Slytherin, what kind of people go to Hufflepuff and Raveclawn?

Hufflepuff = Stoners
Ravenclaw = Faggots

the most normal of normies

Hufflepuff is every other irrelevant student and Ravenclaw is nerds/autismos.

Very simple

Grffindor- Brave outgoing people

Slytherin- Ambitious

Ravenclaw- Clever and like knowledge for the sake of knowledge

Hufflepuff- None of the above basically

Most of Sup Forums would go to ravenclaw, and you know this. Slytherin is Sup Forums, gryffindor is /r9k, and hufflepuff is /soc/

that shit is dumb af and only makes sense in a children's book
any excuse to make sense out of it is an after thought

Hufflepuff are the rejects like geek and band nerds, but not cooler kind of lone wolf people.

Ravenclaw is for the smart kids. The lone wolf outcast can find a home in Ravenclaw sometimes

Gryffindor
>Twitter

Slytherin
>Sup Forums

Hufflepuff
>redditors


Ravenclaw
>literal dogshit(aka tumblr)

>Gryffindor is /r9k/

Isn't Gryffindor supposed to be the house of brave and determined people?

>tfw you got drafted for hufflepuff

eat shit normies, we're secretly the best faction with best group orgies

Gryffindor in actuality is Sup Forums

why do people think that "self-righteous chads/staceys" go to Gryffindor?

Gryffinder
Marvel

Slytherin
DC

Ravenclaw
Disney Star Wars

Hufflepuff
Fox X-Men

Im into Psychs and pot so I guess we would be stoners.

Magic Mushrooms, Wizard MDMA, and Witches Weed.

t. marvelcuck

>Gryffindor
Protagonists

>Slytherin
Antagonists

>Hufflepuff
NPC's

>Ravenclaw
Exposition

It is known.

What house would each Sup Forums board be sorted into?

They much like the other two actually go to one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Because the main cast goes to gryffindor and they are self-righteous chads/staceys

...

...

>gryffindor is /r9k, and hufflepuff is /soc/
Gryffindor is clearly /fit/

I don't go on /soc/ so I can't comment but is it full of autismol weirdoes?

Ravenclaw are a bunch of autists with OCD
Hufflepuff just wanna get baked and laid.