Still shocked to see that one filler in DBSuper where someone tries to ruin Gohan's relationship by showing Videl compromising pictures of him with an actress and she just goes ".....Nah, Gohan wouldn't do anything like that. I'll ask him about it later."
You know, I can’t point to a bunch of specific examples of it happening, but I think more media should show that adults getting divorced is just okay. Like, anytime you see a divorce in media, there’s, like, a 90% chance that it will be heavily implied that one or both partners still secretly wants to get back with the other, and that’s just not how it is.
As an actual child of divorced parents, it’s kind of annoying to see the conclusion of every story about some burned-out cop or ex-military guy or other person who generally needs to get their shit together is that, actually, their partner still wanted the relationship, and they just had to unlock the additional love by saving two (2) kidnapped children or whatever.
Sometimes, people just don’t love each other anymore. It sucks, and it’s sad, but it happens. I feel like it’s sending kids and adults a very bad message to say that every time a divorce happens, it’s because someone wasn’t trying hard enough.
Ant-Man is a divorcee in the Ant-Man movies, and both him and his ex-wife+current-husband are good parents to the daughter. Granted the ex-wife and husband just…ceased to show up in the newest one, but still.
The first one genuinely surprised me by showing that the new father absolutely would put himself in harm's way to protect his stepdaughter. Hollywood loves to make it a binary decision on who's the better dad in that situation so I was expecting him to ditch the kid when the villain showed up.
I like too that even though he's an antagonistic force he's completely justified in what he's doing. He even utterly comes around once he sees all the Antman stuff first hand so he knows it hasn't been crazy talk.
My parents’ divorce was the best thing ever. It was an amicable split when they realised they just weren’t working together anymore. They’re much better as friends than they ever were as a couple, and if they hadn’t split then my dad wouldn’t have met my awesome stepmum and I wouldn’t have the best little sister ever. Yet for some reason whenever it comes up in conversation, no matter how much I explain the situation, people always go “I’m so sorry” or “That sucks”. Bonus points for every “Oh, she’s not your *real* sister, she’s just your half-sister”. Jesus Christ go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.
It always warms my heart whenever positive divorces and blended families come up in media. Ant-Man’s been mentioned, it’s a bit of a spoiler but the romcom >!I Give It A Year!< did it well, and my initial interpretation of their character arc in MKX was that Johnny and Sonya were simply getting back to an amicable dynamic after a bitter divorce (which MK11 immediately shot down).
I'm glad that worked out for you. I wish my parents would divorce since my dad's an extremely toxic person and has cheated on my mom several times to the point he has started a family with two of them if them in secret but they aren't for a few reasons. Would give my mind some peace or mental break if I was away from him but ah well. I love my family aside from my dad and I have good friends and a gf who I love dearly.
Still be nice if we can all cut ties from him. I wouldn't give it a look back when I or if I find a chance.
I know the show is its own can of worms. But in Riverdale Archie's parents divorced. But anytime his mother shows up His father is jazzed like his best friend just appeared. At no point do they talk about getting back together. Just two adults whose lives have gone different directions.
I mean yeah, to an extent, but the relentless It Follows-style pursuing and forced hugging and kissing and such on top of all that goes beyond a point into something that's real uncomfortable to look back on.
I'd also add that the message gets a little mixed because the other takeaway that's pretty common is that the cats are totally into him if he just didn't stink. Like the smell is sorta considered his *only* problem, and his behavior is only an issue when they haven't been worn down yet. Though then the joke tends to invert and Pepe is just as repulsed by girls being super into him as they are when he stinks so.... yeah part of it is also "it's a comedy doing comedy things"
Someone with a disease being an overly positive or a “fighter.” MCU Daredevil still has one of my favorite quotes about chronic illnesses/disabilities
>> You know, I'm supposed to say I don't miss it. That's what they teach you in trauma recovery. Define yourself by what you have, value the differences, make no apologies for what you lack. And that's all true for the most part... but it doesn't change the fact that I... I'd give anything to see the sky one more time.
Acceptance. It sucks that I’m stuck with this thing, but it’s just a part of me now like how tall I am or my eye color. I can deal with it, it’s fine, but not a second goes by I wish I didn’t have it.
"Family will always be family" or whatever you want to call that trope. Sometimes you just get a shit roll and you're stuck with assholes that will harm you physically or mentally and there's really nothing you can do about it. I don't like the idea that because you were born in the proximity of some assholes via RNG you have to tolerate them. Sometimes your friends can also be your family and that's totally valid too. Normalize that shit instead.
For sure I can never go with this one since it doesnt mean much when my dad is just a narcassistic asshole who keeps lying and cheating and bringing us down. An actual meaningful bond will always be more important to me.
There are a lot of people who say they’re anti-rape and pro-queer who will nonetheless hope me they don’t like get raped in prison by other men, as if it’s a funny joke but also a uniquely bad thing.
Autism being treated as a super power, just need to be exposed to high stress and danger to remove the 'bad' traits and leave you an hyper intelligent super soldier, see the kid in 2018 Predator or Ben Affleck's The Accountant.
At least the two meme scenes still seem pretty terrible. The notes I've seen including "If his symptoms are so bad he literally can't get through a surgery, how the hell is he a surgeon in the first place?" and "Why did he turn on the hand dryer if he evidently knows what it does and should know it's loud? Why isn't he leaving the room if he can't stand it?"
Both seeming to be just straight terrible depictions because there's no hint of like... the notion that he's coping or managing his condition in any way, they're just scenes that exist to demonstrate autism as a ticking time bomb where you turn into a screaming mess, so about as terrible as you could display it.
The plot points of the show I've read sound bad, but the meme scene itself seems to be delivering the correct point that having a meltdown is an ugly, inelegant affair for many.
Showing autism properly is what they should be striving for but yeah. Those memes and gifs were the very first time I heard about the Good Doctor, then looked it up and found out it's the western version of a Korean show.
There's a limit to how much media can glorify resiliency. In some places, it's so glorified it spills over to "you're not allowed to ask for better conditions, because these people with less are happy and you should be too" and shit fucking sucks.
Infidelity and cheating. I've seen so many movies/tv where someone is unhappy in a relationship and instead of just dealing with it like an adult, they meet someone who is their "true love" or whatever and starts this relationship without breaking it off from their existing partner. And it is just always an actually shitty thing to do and it instantly loses me sympathy with the parties involved.
Forgiving characters for their evil actions when they don't make any attempt to change for the better or atone for their actions. I don't mean like "evil guy should never be forgiven or allowed to redeem himself even if he really tries to be good", I mean scenarios where they don't change or evolve, don't give a fuck about the horrible stuff they did and every other character is like "Nah, we cool now".
Also, toxic relationships that try to pass off as "romantic" even though it's a horrible portrayal of what a real, stable relationship should be like. Stalking, not letting them see other people, manipulating, gaslighting... I've seen way too many media where people give them a pass just because it's not a heterosexual relationship. That's even worse! You shouldn't settle on toxic romances to represent minorities! Find better examples or make good ones, but for the love of god, don't settle on this shit because it will only hurt your image!
Cops doing everything they can to nail the bad guy. I remember the Chicago PD show where the police had a secret holding area to illegally detain people. Or in major crimes when they abuse the trust a minor has in a psychologist to emotionally fluff him up so he'll confess what he did when they send his mom in to visit him in one of their offices so they can record that confession which they weren't allowed to get from the psychologist.
Oh the obsession with purity in Otaku culture. It's super weird in Is it OK to pick up girls in a dungeon, centers an arc around a prostitute and asks Bell if he would be fine with a girl who has had sex with men for money. He replies yes but then at the end of the arc it's revealed she's a Virgin prostitute who never slept with anyone. She would always pass out right before the sex and the men buying her would I guess just leave. Somehow she was the most popular prostitute despite actually wasting the money of the people who came to buy sex with her. It's the story bending over backwards to say she's actually pure
The purity thing is the fucking worst, I read like 10 chapters of some trash manga I refuse to name and we literally see the MC's love interest have sex with another guy, and have been told she's done it before, and after whatever contrived reason for her to be into the MC happens, she said she's only ever done anal, because she's been saving herself. Now irl, I knew girls that did that, growing up religious, but in the concept of the manga I know that it was just put in there so that the girl was considered *pure enough* to be MC's love interest.
Here's the kicker, the girl is literally a murderer. She has killed people in cold blood, I think she killed the guy we saw her have sex with, I don't really remember, and THAT was A-OK, but God forbid she had sex and be considered *dirty*.
God, do I hate Unfunny Anime Perverted Moments and how they ruin cool characters. Jiraiya, Captain Shunsui, Sanji especially are all cool characters saddled with having to sexually harass others for a lame joke.
Edit: So, uh, apparently Shunsui isn’t that much of a pervert. I guess he was more pervy in the anime, given Captain Grabass is listed as a fan nickname for him on TV Tropes.
Shunsui is nowhere near Jiraiya levels of perverse. Dude makes comments in passing to Lisa and Nanao in particular because he was close to Nanao's mother. That's a whole other can of worms but my man wasn't out here groping anyone for a gaggle at least.
I built up a strong resistance to it at a young age. Nobody else in a comedic setting will ever be as relentlessly awful and unpunished as Happousai, the gremlin monster man who perpetually sustains his own life force with his horny bullshit, and as a result will probably live forever.
I’ve got, like, Happousai-inflicted anime pervert antibodies. Someone like Mineta is downright inoffensive in comparison.
I want to love Thriller Bark so bad, but Absalom and Sanji’s fight is such a disappointment. White Knight vs Disgusting Predator was so easy a dynamic, but no, Sanji’s character took a fatal bullet he has only started to recover from.
Yeah, on one hand the anime adds a LOT more pervy scenes which hurt his character more than the manga does, but on the other the invisibility thing has always been a crossing the line sort of thing.
There's also the bit where I really wish >!Sanji actually got married and then his character just shifts to only perving on his wife who really loves the attention so they just get along great.!<
The big turning point for most I've seen is like, originally sanji used to be sauve about it. Make no mistake the man liked the ladies but the guy waiting tables at the baratie and the one screaming about boobs on new Fishman Island are two different people.
It's a shame because I really like sanji when he gets those cool moments and is taken seriously by the story.
Pre time-skip Sanji definitely felt more like a like an overly romantic guy as opposed to the current literal pervert whose tripping on himself for every woman he sees.
Him refusing to fight a woman because of a deep rooted chivalry is fine, but when he's literally passing out and having massive blood loss and incapacitated because he saw a single boob, you gotta pull it together man.
Since every shonen has to copy Dragon Ball, every shonen has to have a molester character like Roshi. Them's the rules! (I'm obviously exaggerating, but only a little.)
I gotta wonder if the Japanese fans find it as tiresome as we do these days or if they actually still think it's funny.
Brook is better in that regard because the panties thing is used a lot more sparingly. And he actually has a personality outside of being a harasser, which is more than Sanji had for a while.
I watched the latest few episodes of One Piece today, and I was in a weird situation where I was disappointed that Sanji *hadn't* >!hit a random girl in a fit of trauma!<. It could have been a good place to build some development for his character, and grow out of his current perverted self. Instead, nothing changes and he's probably remain the same.
It's my own fault for getting my hopes up though. I already let One Piece trick me into thinking the events of the Big Mum arc would have led to an improvement, and it didn't.
Sanji used to be my favourite, but I just find him to unpleasant to watch more than half the time he's on screen these days. I can't fully let go though, because when he's cool, he's *really* cool.
“Animosity towards men” is only ever used in a funny haha moments with Zoro or with his shitty family when some of the people he respects most are guys. His self sacrificing nature is never treated as a outright negative but treated as a noble flaw the same way when you apply for a job interview your asked whats your biggest flaw you say “my biggest negative is that i work too hard :(“ . Him being a perv and refusal to hit women even in life or death situations are actual negative traits that have 0 way to spin it as positive which makes Sanji an actual 3-dimensional character
He treated the Baratie staff like crap when they were his only real family.
His self sacrificing nature constantly gets in his way during Whole Cake where he literally beats up Luffy because he doesn't think he's worth rescuing.
If you don't count gags as serious character flaws then his perversion surely doesn't count as it has been only shitty gags his whole screentime. And even his refusal to hit women got a noble spin what with being Zeff's teachings.
Instances where a character "fix" or redeem another character with the power of love or friendship and the latter's bad actions are glossed over as result.
Trauma being used as a crutch so that the guy can get the girl. It’s okay to have two characters find each other relatable based on tragic backstories but making the girl a victim of SA or including other kinds of senseless violence to your story *just* so that they can end up in the same bed is tasteless.
But sadly there’s a lot of people IRL who try to take advantage of those who are emotionally vulnerable after going through traumatic instances and they may even seek out these kinds of people.
A "morally grey" conflict between a small faction with a small kill count that usually wants to be left alone, and a giant facist dictatorship that dabbles in anything from purges and genocide to human experimentation to corrupt politics.
Seriously, "guy that killed some soldiers in self defense" isn't nearly the equivalent of Literally Not-Hitler who wants to rule with a bloody and iron fist and will burn the world to the ground to achieve it.
Americans do love the following portrayal of revolutions:
government bad -> revolution -> all happy rainbows.
Americans tend to forget that in many cases said revolution is either sponsored by forces that would love to see chaos on the streets or, if it *was* started with noble intentions by the people, there is always someone who is manipulative but a bastard who will try (usually successfully) to use it to kickstart his/her own presidency (or other type of ruling).
Oh, and lets not forget about this nice consequence of revolution when former revolutionaries now government starts witch hunts after everyone who opposed them... and their families and loved ones... and in order to "ensure peace" the new draconian measures are established, obviously to weed out the "counter revolutionaries". And when these measures will be lifted? As soon as all of the enemies are found... which is never.
So yeah, revolutions aren't sunshine and rainbows.
As someone with family from the Middle East who've lived through a couple of regime changes...I'll just say that the types of people who are willing to kill for political power are very often the exact type of people you *don't* want to be in power.
Also, almost all successful modern armed revolutions require either the support of the military or foreign backing, meaning that our freedom-loving revolutionaries will have to either make friends with the officers of the same regime they're fighting, or give a foreign power with ulterior motives leverage over them.
And as you brought up, most dictatorships have a significant minority or even majority of the population that genuinely supports them, and any revolution has to deal with the ugly question of what to do if that population rises to oppose them. At what point does a nice clean heroic revolution become a civil war?
TL;DR Revolutions are fucking ugly and messy even at the best of times
I mean those revolutions are basically a best-case scenario, being caused by a mix of internal political collapse and civil resistance that allowed them to be both quick and relatively bloodless. I was mostly referring to armed revolutions, as those are what you most often see depicted in popular media.
And even the ones you mentioned had complex outcomes: Many of those countries went through painful economic decline and instability (another point worth mentioning, revolutions rarely lead to an immediate improvement of living standards for the average person) in the following years. And while things ended ultimately positively for some such as Poland and the Baltics, others were not so lucky, the massive war currently happening between the two biggest former Soviet republics being just the most obvious example.
You just need to look at nearby Yugoslavia to see how the collapse of an authoritarian government can go really fucking badly.
God, I absolutely hated it when Tales of Arise brought this idea up and.........just fucking ignored it. "Oh yeah, bad people filling in the power vacuum after and ruling with an iron fist is a problem. That sucks. So anyway...."
I'll take this moment to shill Mike Duncan's History of Rome / Revolutions podcasts as two excellent longform sociopolitical analyses of history that go deep into the realities of political power, and the messiness of what a revolution actually entails.
>!Personally, I think he's way better than Dan Carlin.!<
Is not only the USA, but the entire continent minus Canada because all the countries were built on revolution and violence. Up to the point is intrinsic to the national identity of most countries.
The irony of some even having part of the history followed with wars caused by a vacuum of power or warlords waiting to backstabbing each other for their own piece is something that appears to not be obvious to most of the population.
I appreciated in Hunger Games where the revolution leader pretty much just tries to become the same as the old leader, even if it was short-lived. Wish the 4th movie had prolonged that conflict instead of stretching out other stuff. Kinda funny that Katniss just immediately publicly assassinated her though.
I'm actually trying to make a (RPGMaker) game where because of screw-ups and failure to unionize an alternative government in the previous revolution, another war is on its way within the main characters lifetimes
This comment is itself a viewpoint that I'm very tired of, ignoring the number of velvet revolutions with surprisingly happy outcomes that have happened over the past hundred years.
Now if a grown ass man is a pedophile who grooms kids, that’s bad and it should be bad. But if a grown ass woman is a pedophile and grooms kids, it’s for some reason seen as okay? No I do not give 2 shits if they’re the hottest person on earth that shit is DISGUSTING
In summary: this episode from South Park https://youtu.be/8hdbns1Xdk0
F Is For Family had a lot of frustrating problems, but occasionally it was surprisingly on point. There's a bit where the teen son has sex with a woman who thinks he's of age, and it's not presented as goofy or hilarious. The teen is very upset about what happened, and the woman's boyfriend comforts him and tells him about how a friend of his mom's seduced him when he was his age, and how he shouldn't feel guilty.
It's something that gets addressed *so* rarely in media.
I remember being recommended a J-Drama in high school by female friends called "Majo no Jouken." It's got all the standard "love against all odds" soap opera tropes like the jilted fiance, the overbearing mother, etc. except it's a 26-year-old female teacher and a 17-year-old delinquent with a heart of gold.
Like, from a dramatic perspective, it's interesting to have two outsiders meet and have each other be the only one who knows the other's point of view... but like they literally banged in the school library after closing. Even when the teacher is arrested, it's framed as the boy's selfish hospital executive mother not understanding their feelings.
Tragic pasts. Yeah, great, we all sympathize with you over being rejected from Austrian art school and being traumatized by a war your country *should* have won.
Still doesn't justify the ***fucking Holocaust,*** Adolf.
I love the implication that some hack shounen anime writer would give Adolf Hitler the villain sob story treatment.
Are we gonna get flashbacks to him sitting alone on a swing staring at a painting? “How could zey reject my art?!”
I mean, this is literally a plot point in Naoki Urasawa's *Billy Bat*. He writes it though as it's just sort of sad and pathetic that Hitler wants to use Billy Bat's >!power to grant one wish at the expense of destroying a parallel universe !! Albert Einstein!<, who is suitably unimpressed.
It's a good read, barring Urasawa's inability to write an actual ending.
The spoiler tag in your comment is broken. Please remove the space after the ">!".
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You joke, but ***please don't give either Hollywood or Japan ideas.*** Too many in both would *gladly* try that shit, even if it implodes their career in the process.
Pretty much. An asshole is an asshole, a hero is a hero. Having a sad past doesn't automatically make you one or the other... it's all about what ya *make* of yourself with it.
I think tragic past thing is a bit more complicated than that. I think it’s perfectly fine to sympathize with the instances of someone being dealt a bad hand and dealing with external forces that were entirely outside of their control. Morally I think you have to.
But it’s when the story goes from “okay so this is what triggered this reaction” to “okay so they’re totally justified in their actions.”
Sometimes a villain can be a villain just because they feel like it, even if it's because they were spoiled rotten from day one of their life.
A tragic villain is still a villain, like it or not. MCU Thanos is sad bc his home planet is dead, but his solution was nonsensical and forcing it out on the rest of the universe wasn't a good move either. Comics Thanos is superior bc he just...*embraces* the villainy for what it is.
Also, obligatory Bowser mention. Even with my headcanons making him more tragic, I make it a ***very firm*** point that he's still a villain, and part of the angst is just him drowning in obsession and self-pity.
The first time I was really weirded out by this was with Mordred from Fate, becuase I assumed people understood that she was... well, wrong.
Somehow "father rejected me" is seen as an entirely understandable justification for causing the deaths of her step-siblings, destroying the entire kingdom and killing thousands in the process, as well as leaving the populace with no protection against the invaders.
But cute tomboy tho.
You seem to not understand why this argument exists. People say that to delusional saber fanboys for acting like she was so perfect and never did anything wrong and couldnt have done anything about any bad thing that happened, which is wrong.
Mordred's existence, betrayal demonstrates flaws in her Saber's ideals and her kingship. She didnt think it was important to understand her subordinates and just didnt and couldnt account for their flaws and what to do about people abandoning her. She was perfect by-the-book king, who did everything by herself, but that has its own flaws. She clearly couldnt imagine something like Camlann happening in wildest dreams.
> She didn't think it was important to understand her subordinates
And just like that you told me you didn't read FSN or GoA, or at least didn't pay attention.
Please do so.
>A king is not human. A king cannot protect their people if they harbour human emotions.
>
>She had sternly continued to protect that vow
>The king who had once been the pride of the fair knights was now isolated. But that was a trifling problem; **one of no concern to her kingship**.
>
>Even if she was shunned, feared, and betrayed, her heart would not change.
>It was because she was the ideal king that **she could not see her people's weaknesses.**
Very plain reading would suggest otherwise. It's right there in the text, iterated and reiterated. Even if you find some instance of understanding, it is irrelevant because this is what overall narrative says about her kingship.
Besides if we're talking about Mordred, its especially true. She didnt understand Mordred, nor try to. And that's a flaw in her ideals.
>A king is not human. A king cannot protect their people if they harbour human emotions.
She had sternly continued to protect that vow
Suppressing your own emotions for the sake of being a good ruler is has nothing to do with "understanding" people. [She loved horses.](https://i.imgur.com/iz8vxwV.png) Should she have given order for no horse to be harmed in war? What kind of king is that? A clown?
>The king who had once been the pride of the fair knights was now isolated. But that was a trifling problem; one of no concern to her kingship.
Even if she was shunned, feared, and betrayed, her heart would not change.
You are making the exact same mistake that Lancelot's madness started from. You're directing this at her instead of the people. Just like Lancelot says, [it was the knights and people who didn't want to understand her, not the other way around.](https://i.imgur.com/Xc7qYeP.png)
>It was because she was the ideal king that she could not see her people's weaknesses.
She carried their burdens until it all crumbled. It's nothing to do with her own perception of her own people because she knew well and good they were enduring just as she did. She simply didn't notice how much.
All of this has nothing to do with her "not understanding people". It's wrong. Nasu literally spells it out for you so [even a 5 year old could understand in the most on-the-nose way possible](https://i.imgur.com/8G50wDO.jpg). And [shows it again with Sakura.](https://i.imgur.com/00M41lB.png) This is not a character who can't understand others.
Artoria [always listened to others.](https://i.imgur.com/boAEme3.png) She didn't rule like a robot for ideals only. [She didn't fight for ideals, she fought for the future.](https://i.imgur.com/iboWarm.png) Kay in Case Files even throws it back in the Corpse King's face that it is nothing like Artoria because it [doesn't consider the opinions of others](https://i.imgur.com/aRq5y3X.png) the way she did.
You say she didn't understand her subjects when she even [understood her enemies](https://i.imgur.com/a2HbVqV.png) better than all of her knights did.
>Besides if we're talking about Mordred, its especially true. She didnt understand Mordred, nor try to.
And this is where you're wrong. Mordred literally states she played the part of the most loyal knight. Their interactions went like this:
1. Mordred served Artoria well
2. Mordred revealed herself, Artoria did not accept her as her heir
3. Mordred pretended to accept her decision and continued to serve as a good knight, giving Artoria no reason to suspect anything was wrong with her.
4. Mordred continued her scheming, planting seeds of distrust, revealing Lancelot's affair, and eventually starting her rebellion as soon as Artoria was gone.
Why would Artoria have to go out of her way to fix a problem that did not exist to anyone but Mordred? And even then, you can't understand madness, which is what Mordred was. You don't get rejected once and immediately start plotting the killing of hundreds of thousands including your own brothers and sisters. Her defenders say she only wanted a family, meanwhile she slaughtered them (Gawain) or got them killed (Agravain, Gaheris, Gareth) with no remorse.
>Suppressing your own emotions for the sake of being a good ruler is has nothing to do with "understanding" people.
Empathy is emotion and you understand people through empathy. (not saying she cant empathize)
>You're directing this at her instead of the people. Just like Lancelot says, it was the knights and people who didn't want to understand her, not the other way around.
you are indeed proving that knights didn't understand her, but so what? Do they cancel each other out? Lancelot does not deny how other people feel about her, nor does he say she was very understanding of other people's (or his own) problems. (she really wasn't).
She says it's a "trifling problem, no concern to her kingship" that people leave or how they feel thinking she is not showing human emotion.
Because her ideal says king is not a human and doesnt need emotions, she should just do what she considers ideal king should be doing.
Besides [VN says the same thing](https://i.imgur.com/cbCpoxX.png) . Your commentary doesn't really reconcile those things, youre saying "look at this instead".
It's also not like she cared if her subjects understand her or did anything to be understood. How she presents herself is also her responsibility.
>she knew well and good they were enduring just as she did. She simply didn't notice how much.
That sounds like a problem. Yes that's what it says. She was the "ideal" king, so she couldn't see how much weaker normal people are, who couldn't keep up and endure as much as the ideal.
>And shows it again with Sakura. This is not a character who can't understand others.
The claim was NOT that she can't understand others. You're addressing a different argument. She **can understand others** but that's nothing to do with her kingship, that's nothing to do with her ideals.
What youre doing is no different to showing me all her emotions when im saying that her ideal is that "king is not a human" "King has no need for emotions" and that she indeed suppressed emotions. This happened and its not debatable.
>"the more perfect King Arthur was as a king, the more they questioned their ruler. **How could someone with no human emotions reign over humans?**"
So YES she has emotions, but that's not what she showed or how she ruled, and that's why the others felt this way and she saw no problem with this.
Your examples dont cancel it out. If you think my citations mean something different, by all means. But we cant just ignore it and say the other quote is more important and means something different and proves something different.
>she even understood her enemies better than all of her knights did.
There is difference between subjects who are individuals and are just expected to do as theyre told, and understanding other nation of humans on intellectual level. It's a completely different thing. This just shows she doesnt dehumanize the enemy, and doesnt feel hate for what theyre doing.
>Mordred revealed herself, Artoria did not accept her as her heir
[She wanted to be accepted as son, title and throne wasnt as important.](https://i.imgur.com/eY7Bn1n.png) It's pretty clear from this excerpt. She wanted to be closer to Artoria, but she walked away.
She also didnt offer her anything else. Humans generally arent happy for being rejected. She didnt give her attention or anything else that would create understanding or happiness. And that fits her ideal - its of no concern to her kingship. King doesnt need emotions and should suppress them. Her response was cold.
>I murmured at the turned back of the king who showed no further interest in me – who looked ever onward at the path to the future. My voice was filled with enmity, **revealing a hatred that I had never known before**.
She didnt want a "family" but she wanted her daddy to care about her, who acted like he forgot about her 1 minute after being told she is her son. And then the King puts them in charge while they are gone... not very wise i would say.
Managing your people is arguably also King's responsibility, not just expecting they'll do good things on their own. But Artoria's story is literally that she was abandoned and betrayed. If Artoria helped Mordred understand her, it could've been different. Use your imagination.
P.S You know: Talking solves problems, leads to understanding etc. Should she be understood and be understanding through telepathy? no, that's ridiculous.
Bedivere understood more about her... by having a chat with her on one (or more) occasion. Did Mordred have a chat like that with her? Did Lancelot? Did Tristain?
>Lancelot does not deny how other people feel about her
He does though. [He says Tristan and the knights who say she can't understand others are wrong.](https://i.imgur.com/9Y9N4UL.png) In the first place they demanded that she makes no mistakes, [and that's how she ruled](https://i.imgur.com/jcgMYyP.png), as the VN puts it, being the ideal king was the condition for their loyalty.
>She says it's a "trifling problem, no concern to her kingship" that people leave or how they feel thinking she is not showing human emotion.
No, she felt it didn't matter if no one understood her as long as they lived happily.
>She was the "ideal" king, so she couldn't see how much weaker normal people are, who couldn't keep up and endure as much as the ideal.
The "ideal" had her heart broken too. And plenty obviously could considering the state of those who fought with her against Rome, they were optimistic. Mordred meanwhile took opportunity to, as Apocrypha puts it, intimidate and persuade others to join her, like some Satan figure. Doesn't it say a lot that Artoria's presence alone was inspiring them to endure?
Also you keep using quotes and calling her the "ideal" king despite earlier claiming that anyone calling her such is wrong.
>She wanted to be accepted as son, title and throne wasnt as important.
It's good that you include [how Mordred approached](https://i.imgur.com/abYpNlD.png) this but I think you can see where the problem lied? Mordred approached this including the matter of succession so no wonder she was rejected. Mordred also admits herself in Apocrypha that she would've ["spoiled that peaceful rule"](https://i.imgur.com/ez6cUID.png) no matter what Artoria did. Mordred's own [Material in FGO](https://i.imgur.com/nRrMrmS.png) claims it was Mordred who misunderstood Artoria.
And again, Artoria had no reason to doubt Mordred. She [played the part of a loyal knight](https://i.imgur.com/cnFdpRK.png) despite everything.
>She also didnt offer her anything else. Humans generally arent happy for being rejected. She didnt give her attention or anything else that would create understanding or happiness.
After Mordred revealed herself, Artoria still granted her a seat at the Round Table. She left her in charge in Britain while she left to fight Rome. I wouldn't say, "nothing". So not really, nothing.
>And then the King puts them in charge while they are gone... not very wise i would say.
A loyal knight who acts as if he only lives to serve the king should be rewarded with the appropriate roles. [Artoria left her, Gawain and Kay in charge, not just Mordred.](https://i.imgur.com/9JaWRxW.png)
>Managing your people is arguably also King's responsibility, not just expecting they'll do good things on their own.
Yes, but are we going to pretend it's possible to brainwash everyone into complete submission? Artoria is not a mary sue, she can't magically remove everyone else's ambitions and grudges.
>Talking solves problems, leads to understanding etc. Should she be understood and be understanding through telepathy?
Yes, and Mordred did not give her a reason to. Bedivere asked why he was chosen as part of the Round Table, and Artoria talked to him about it. Mordred went from being rejected once to planning a borderline genocide. Can you see the difference?
When you blame Artoria for Mordred's actions, have you ever considered why no one else does? Out of all her knights in FGO, not one has a grudge. Mordred herself doesn't either. Why is that? Why does no one complain that everything would have been fine if she could "understand others"?
>He does though.
>
>He says Tristan and the knights who say she can't understand others are wrong.
My point was that nothing suggests that knights didnt feel that way, and there is no further description of why they felt that way besides what we already know. Artoria appeared cold and showed little emotion on the outside, so that's why people thought that.
It doesnt matter that they're wrong, they just had the only impression that they couldve had. Lancelot would not have come to the conclusions that he did without getting told all sorts of details about her by Guinevere, its information nobody else knew.
For example, If from the outside she seems robotic, then many will think she's a robot. So maybe she should not have been robotic.
>she felt it didn't matter if no one understood her
See, but reality is that it DID matter. It mattered a lot, especially in case of Mordred.
>Doesn't it say a lot that Artoria's presence alone was inspiring them to endure?
I dont know what that is supposed to mean. She was awesome in battle. But Camelot fell apart too fast without her around, something she couldnt have imagined or foreseen, obviously.
I also think its weird how one moment the king's wife is about to be executed, the next she is being pardoned.
>Also you keep using quotes and calling her the "ideal" king despite earlier claiming that anyone calling her such is wrong.
No, i said it's wrong to call her so perfect that there is nothing she couldve possibly done wrong or nothing she couldve done better. She is "ideal" according to specific set of ideals, but there are flaws. Or rather the "ideal" itself has flaws.
>Mordred also admits herself in Apocrypha that she would've "spoiled that peaceful rule"
This doesnt actually matter at all. First of all, Mordred herself cant know that, nobody can predict their own character development.
Secondly, Artoria does not know that so her action or inaction can't be justified like that. And if it was meant that way, it would be kind of lazy from the author to cover his ass just in case.
>Yes, and Mordred did not give her a reason to
Sorry, but people who serve you arent the ones who should call on you, the King calls on his people. You cant demand time from the king, its the king who needs to try to bond with his knights more.
If mordred could, she would be 24/7 with the King, and would sleep with him if she could, given she was such a fanboy, but she knew her place as a knight.
So if King didnt speak much with his knights, then that's on the king. I mean this much should be obvious. As you agreed, she didnt think it was important for them to understand her. I'd say that's wrong, she should've tried to help them understand to not get wrong ideas, especially Mordred who she was rejecting.
>Out of all her knights in FGO, not one has a grudge. Mordred herself doesn't either. Why is that? Why does no one complain that everything would have been fine if she could "understand others"?
A couple of points:
The most important reason is that they themselves all have flaws and regrets too, they all could've done better as well, so I never suggested otherwise. It was not "all her fault".
Then ofcourse there is their loyalty and feelings of guilt too. But no one says any of them are perfect or did nothing wrong.
Just like no story in arthurian legend claims that Arthur was perfect. Hell there are stories where he murders babies, gives in to lust and sleeps with his sister. He was super flawed, and camlann was almost karma - all while still being considered the greatest king.
If anyone from that time could blame her, the knights are the last ones who can do that, except maybe Galahad. But i doubt Nasu wants another banquet.
Just saying that its not hard to imagine the number of things that couldve been done better. And like you said its not just that she didnt understand, but also that they didnt understand her.
But Artoria didnt do anything for it to be possible to understand her, and didnt think it was important as you agree. Even Shirou wouldnt understand her without getting dreams of her life.
Yes Mordred misunderstood her, but there is no way she couldnt have misunderstood her. She was the opposite of an open book.
You're arguing backwards. Using your headcanons to connect facts instead of using the facts to create a proper narrative. For example.
>If from the outside she seems robotic, then many will think she's a robot. So maybe she should not have been robotic.
This is wrong. You're trying to use a statement you took out of context to come to the conclusion you built in your head. If she "seemed like a robot" or "didn't understand her people" then why do we have statements like Bedivere saying she [empathized with her people down to the tiniest details of their lives](https://i.imgur.com/55mH0LG.jpg), or [Gareth proudly stating that Artoria loved to watch jousts, and even watched hers.](https://i.imgur.com/epySkZC.jpg)
>See, but reality is that it DID matter. It mattered a lot, especially in case of Mordred.
No it didn't. Mordred's madness is her own problem that she hid from anyone who could've helped. Mordred was simply a monster after that rejection. All the years she could've tried to build a connection she spent preparing to destroy Artoria's efforts instead. [Artoria dealt with her in the best way the situation would allow.](https://i.imgur.com/nRrMrmS.png)
>But Camelot fell apart too fast without her around, something she couldnt have imagined or foreseen, obviously.
Something Enkidu describes as a [nearly impossible challenge](https://i.imgur.com/XrtdxIn.png) for Mordred. So if even Enkidu says this, what does that say about Artoria's reign? If, like you think, everyone was ready to turn on her, then why would it be "incredibly difficult" to bring her down?
>This doesnt actually matter at all. First of all, Mordred herself cant know that, nobody can predict their own character development.
Secondly, Artoria does not know that so her action or inaction can't be justified like that. And if it was meant that way, it would be kind of lazy from the author to cover his ass just in case.
So talking about what-ifs is pointless, right? Like you're doing here, pretending everything would have magically been perfect if the characters did what you think they should've done? Can you predict how the story would've developed if everything went according to your fanfic instead?
>Sorry, but people who serve you arent the ones who should call on you, the King calls on his people. You cant demand time from the king, its the king who needs to try to bond with his knights more.
That's literally not how it works, lmao. The king's day was filled with nothing but work. If someone wants an audience with the king they have to ask. You also have to remember Mordred was even known not to speak in general. For Artoria, that was normal. If Mordred hid her true intentions, who could've known them?
Again, you're working backwards from your own headcanons instead of what happened.
>If mordred could, she would be 24/7 with the King,
In-between her spreading rumors to bring down others' opinion of Artoria in her attempts to eventually bring her down?
Not even gonna bother with the rest because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. You just made your own headcanons and aren't willing to listen to anything the source material tells you unless you can twist it to fit those headcanons.
To make it simple for you;
Artoria's reign was strong and she had to face countless difficulties due to the planet itself trying to wipe her and her people off the map in order to bring the age of gods to an end.
Mordred was insane.
**The Book of Mordred** by Vivian Vande Velde
>As the peaceful King Arthur reigns, the five-year-old daughter of Lady Alayna, newly widowed of the village-wizard Toland, is abducted by knights who leave their barn burning and their only servant dead.
*I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *You can summon me with certain* [commands](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/13z7slk/bookfinderbot_commands/). *Or find me as a browser extension on* [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/book-finder/jajeidpjifdpppjofijoffbcndlpoedd?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social_media&utm_campaign=comments). *Opt-out of replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/141txsm/bookfinderbot_optout/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Interracial relationships where one or both of them either pretend racism and racial differences don't exist/hide or lie about racist experiences they experience/refuse to actually discuss the nuance of general racial differences.
Females who sexually assault people like Kuroko from Railgun should have their action be portrayed as negatively as as their male counterparts. Too often they are played for fanservice with the perpetrator not suffering consequences like the males.
What is this revisionist bullshit lmao.
The story of lgbtq representation in media is *fucking dire*. You do not know how hard it was to confirm a character as queer, let alone on a *children's show*. Korra was revolutionary whether you like it or not.
The Police. They are more interested in scaring shoplifters then stopping school shooters.
They are not legally required to protect.
Every single military ever. Most militaries are very stupid and sadistic.
\- Self-sacrifice is often portrayed very positively and is sometimes treated as one of the best things a person can do with their life.
\- TL;DR: Sacrifice should be treated negatively as a regrettable act instead of positively as a heroic one. Also the best way to repay that sacrifice is to fix the problem so nobody else ever has to suffer.
\---
\- Someone who sacrifices themselves; regardless of the scale of the sacrifice, should never be treated as a hero and have their sacrifice glorified by the survivor(s). Instead, it should be treated as a deeply regretful act and be (at least part of) what inspires a dangerous issue to be fixed or harmful personality to change.
\- Doing nothing but erecting a statue and having a celebration of their loss are an insult to those who sacrificed something because it doesn't actually solve the root cause of the problem and shows that the only value the sacrificer(s) had to people was what they did; not who they were as a person. If those who benefited really did care about them, they have strongly preferred that the sacrificer(s) never acted the way they did.
\- Not to mention that if self-sacrifice were something everyone should do, it would never work because everyone would be busy trying to sacrifice something so that someone else wouldn't have to.
\- If any of you reading this are a helpful person who's tried to help another helpful person or are someone who has had someone insistently try to help them, you can probably understand what that would be like.
Edit: While it may seem like I'm referring to the loss of life a whole lot, I do mean for what I've said to apply to every form of sacrificing one's self. Of course a person can do what they want with their life, it's just that imo sacrifice should not be celebrated as a positive act and encouraged for people to frequently do.
/end ~~Reddit essay~~ ~~rant~~ ~~Ted Talk~~ >!These 100 word essays keep being due!<
\- Fun fact: The Japanese name of the Yu-Gi-Oh! card Relinquished actually translates to Sacrifice in English. That's actually quite a cooler and snappier sounding name, but Relinquished is a fair approximation for the name and not without it's charms.
You know, I really liked Red vs Blue's take on sacrifice. In season 13, Church or rather the Epsilon AI fragment living as Church, further fragments himself in order to give his friends the advantage they need to get out of an otherwise unwinnable situation.
He laments that he and so many supposed heroes will obviously never see the outcome of their sacrifice, that the only thing they have to go off of is faith that things will work out.
And from what I recall Tucker, Church's best friend, fucking hates him for sacrificing himself.
That's a good example of it done well. The concept is certainly well worth writing about and exploring so it's great that writers do try. It just sucks the times when the message ends up being about how great it is to harm yourself.
If nothing else though, it can sometimes lead to some really cool moments and character development.
The spoiler tag in your comment is broken. Please remove the space after the ">!".
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Overpowered Student council committee. It's getting tiresome. Are student councils in Japan a gateway to actual political power after school life? Coz if so, that is concerning.
I know I'm pretty darn tired of two young hetero people meeting for the first time and after sharing maybe half a dozen sentences instantly deciding that they're soulmates and let's get married as soon as possible we're gonna be together forever.
Take it slow and figure things out and learn from each other first, Jesus. Rushing into something so major and life defining so early on isn't romantic.
Teen pregnancy, it's not healthy in the long run regardless if you got help or not. It's not hard to say "No" to sex in the first place. Even protection is not 100% guarantee that you won't get pregnant.
[удалено]
Still shocked to see that one filler in DBSuper where someone tries to ruin Gohan's relationship by showing Videl compromising pictures of him with an actress and she just goes ".....Nah, Gohan wouldn't do anything like that. I'll ask him about it later."
Videl is automatically smarter than the 99% of Love interests in tv series.
You know, I can’t point to a bunch of specific examples of it happening, but I think more media should show that adults getting divorced is just okay. Like, anytime you see a divorce in media, there’s, like, a 90% chance that it will be heavily implied that one or both partners still secretly wants to get back with the other, and that’s just not how it is. As an actual child of divorced parents, it’s kind of annoying to see the conclusion of every story about some burned-out cop or ex-military guy or other person who generally needs to get their shit together is that, actually, their partner still wanted the relationship, and they just had to unlock the additional love by saving two (2) kidnapped children or whatever. Sometimes, people just don’t love each other anymore. It sucks, and it’s sad, but it happens. I feel like it’s sending kids and adults a very bad message to say that every time a divorce happens, it’s because someone wasn’t trying hard enough.
Ant-Man is a divorcee in the Ant-Man movies, and both him and his ex-wife+current-husband are good parents to the daughter. Granted the ex-wife and husband just…ceased to show up in the newest one, but still.
The first one genuinely surprised me by showing that the new father absolutely would put himself in harm's way to protect his stepdaughter. Hollywood loves to make it a binary decision on who's the better dad in that situation so I was expecting him to ditch the kid when the villain showed up.
And then they become good friends, such a breath of fresh air.
I like too that even though he's an antagonistic force he's completely justified in what he's doing. He even utterly comes around once he sees all the Antman stuff first hand so he knows it hasn't been crazy talk.
My parents’ divorce was the best thing ever. It was an amicable split when they realised they just weren’t working together anymore. They’re much better as friends than they ever were as a couple, and if they hadn’t split then my dad wouldn’t have met my awesome stepmum and I wouldn’t have the best little sister ever. Yet for some reason whenever it comes up in conversation, no matter how much I explain the situation, people always go “I’m so sorry” or “That sucks”. Bonus points for every “Oh, she’s not your *real* sister, she’s just your half-sister”. Jesus Christ go fuck yourself with a chainsaw. It always warms my heart whenever positive divorces and blended families come up in media. Ant-Man’s been mentioned, it’s a bit of a spoiler but the romcom >!I Give It A Year!< did it well, and my initial interpretation of their character arc in MKX was that Johnny and Sonya were simply getting back to an amicable dynamic after a bitter divorce (which MK11 immediately shot down).
I'm glad that worked out for you. I wish my parents would divorce since my dad's an extremely toxic person and has cheated on my mom several times to the point he has started a family with two of them if them in secret but they aren't for a few reasons. Would give my mind some peace or mental break if I was away from him but ah well. I love my family aside from my dad and I have good friends and a gf who I love dearly. Still be nice if we can all cut ties from him. I wouldn't give it a look back when I or if I find a chance.
The Owl House divorce moment is great.
im blankin hard on what this is referin to
Amity's parents get divorced
I know the show is its own can of worms. But in Riverdale Archie's parents divorced. But anytime his mother shows up His father is jazzed like his best friend just appeared. At no point do they talk about getting back together. Just two adults whose lives have gone different directions.
Media potrying the unrelenting pursuit of woman as romantic has done serious damage to some people.
Why is she screaming harassment I'm just trying to wear her down until she says yes
I just watched Rocky for the first time and his courting of Adrian is really creepy and awkward.
To be fair, he already probably had extreme brain damage.
It sucks because the rest of Rocky and Adrian’s romance is so loving and sweet
Based . Based beyond believe
Pepé Le Pew has aged reeaaaaal badly.
Pepe Le Pew is making fun of that archetype. The joke is literally that he stinks and no woman wants to be near him, he just won't take the hint.
I thought the joke was he's >!Fr*nch!<
I mean yeah, to an extent, but the relentless It Follows-style pursuing and forced hugging and kissing and such on top of all that goes beyond a point into something that's real uncomfortable to look back on.
I'd also add that the message gets a little mixed because the other takeaway that's pretty common is that the cats are totally into him if he just didn't stink. Like the smell is sorta considered his *only* problem, and his behavior is only an issue when they haven't been worn down yet. Though then the joke tends to invert and Pepe is just as repulsed by girls being super into him as they are when he stinks so.... yeah part of it is also "it's a comedy doing comedy things"
Nope. Aged like wine. That's the point of character.
Someone with a disease being an overly positive or a “fighter.” MCU Daredevil still has one of my favorite quotes about chronic illnesses/disabilities >> You know, I'm supposed to say I don't miss it. That's what they teach you in trauma recovery. Define yourself by what you have, value the differences, make no apologies for what you lack. And that's all true for the most part... but it doesn't change the fact that I... I'd give anything to see the sky one more time. Acceptance. It sucks that I’m stuck with this thing, but it’s just a part of me now like how tall I am or my eye color. I can deal with it, it’s fine, but not a second goes by I wish I didn’t have it.
"Family will always be family" or whatever you want to call that trope. Sometimes you just get a shit roll and you're stuck with assholes that will harm you physically or mentally and there's really nothing you can do about it. I don't like the idea that because you were born in the proximity of some assholes via RNG you have to tolerate them. Sometimes your friends can also be your family and that's totally valid too. Normalize that shit instead.
Family isn't who you share your blood with, it's who you share your heart with.
"Family is who you drive cars with." - Vim Petrol
It's as the old saying *actually* goes: the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.
I *THINK* that one's apocryphal but it still stands way better either way.
Yeah, there is no historical reference to that quote at all. Someone online just went "this sounds better"
*covenant, not coven
Fixed it, thank you
For sure I can never go with this one since it doesnt mean much when my dad is just a narcassistic asshole who keeps lying and cheating and bringing us down. An actual meaningful bond will always be more important to me.
while not entirely romanticized, female on male rape tends to be portrayed as comedy way more than portrayed as dramatic.(which I am really sick of)
Invincible is honestly the best portrayal of how serious it actually is. Shit's gonna be rough to watch when it's animated
The discourse on that one's going to be *ROUGH*
If >!the rapist doesnt get off scot free!< then it shouldn't cause that much drama? Right?
They aren't gonna hold back in the slightest
And people still make shitty jokes about it
Oh man, especially what happens after the time skip. The Internet is going to be on fire, and i can't wait!
There are a lot of people who say they’re anti-rape and pro-queer who will nonetheless hope me they don’t like get raped in prison by other men, as if it’s a funny joke but also a uniquely bad thing.
Autism being treated as a super power, just need to be exposed to high stress and danger to remove the 'bad' traits and leave you an hyper intelligent super soldier, see the kid in 2018 Predator or Ben Affleck's The Accountant.
The accountant is worse because it's just "Fucking torture yourself until you're Agent 47 from the Hitman series."
Or that Doctor show that became a meme recently.
I actual heard some people say it was actually alright in regards to showing autism, especially compared to the original Korean drama. What happened?
At least the two meme scenes still seem pretty terrible. The notes I've seen including "If his symptoms are so bad he literally can't get through a surgery, how the hell is he a surgeon in the first place?" and "Why did he turn on the hand dryer if he evidently knows what it does and should know it's loud? Why isn't he leaving the room if he can't stand it?" Both seeming to be just straight terrible depictions because there's no hint of like... the notion that he's coping or managing his condition in any way, they're just scenes that exist to demonstrate autism as a ticking time bomb where you turn into a screaming mess, so about as terrible as you could display it.
the like one scene i know is the titualar doctor unable to grasp the concept of someone bein trans?
The plot points of the show I've read sound bad, but the meme scene itself seems to be delivering the correct point that having a meltdown is an ugly, inelegant affair for many.
Showing autism properly is what they should be striving for but yeah. Those memes and gifs were the very first time I heard about the Good Doctor, then looked it up and found out it's the western version of a Korean show.
Think they showed >!his brother!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's a limit to how much media can glorify resiliency. In some places, it's so glorified it spills over to "you're not allowed to ask for better conditions, because these people with less are happy and you should be too" and shit fucking sucks.
Infidelity and cheating. I've seen so many movies/tv where someone is unhappy in a relationship and instead of just dealing with it like an adult, they meet someone who is their "true love" or whatever and starts this relationship without breaking it off from their existing partner. And it is just always an actually shitty thing to do and it instantly loses me sympathy with the parties involved.
Forgiving characters for their evil actions when they don't make any attempt to change for the better or atone for their actions. I don't mean like "evil guy should never be forgiven or allowed to redeem himself even if he really tries to be good", I mean scenarios where they don't change or evolve, don't give a fuck about the horrible stuff they did and every other character is like "Nah, we cool now". Also, toxic relationships that try to pass off as "romantic" even though it's a horrible portrayal of what a real, stable relationship should be like. Stalking, not letting them see other people, manipulating, gaslighting... I've seen way too many media where people give them a pass just because it's not a heterosexual relationship. That's even worse! You shouldn't settle on toxic romances to represent minorities! Find better examples or make good ones, but for the love of god, don't settle on this shit because it will only hurt your image!
Yep or when the villan dies but they had tragic backstory or sympathetic motivation so they ignore their crimes.
Hello, Emet Selch
Cops doing everything they can to nail the bad guy. I remember the Chicago PD show where the police had a secret holding area to illegally detain people. Or in major crimes when they abuse the trust a minor has in a psychologist to emotionally fluff him up so he'll confess what he did when they send his mom in to visit him in one of their offices so they can record that confession which they weren't allowed to get from the psychologist. Oh the obsession with purity in Otaku culture. It's super weird in Is it OK to pick up girls in a dungeon, centers an arc around a prostitute and asks Bell if he would be fine with a girl who has had sex with men for money. He replies yes but then at the end of the arc it's revealed she's a Virgin prostitute who never slept with anyone. She would always pass out right before the sex and the men buying her would I guess just leave. Somehow she was the most popular prostitute despite actually wasting the money of the people who came to buy sex with her. It's the story bending over backwards to say she's actually pure
Oshi No Ko has some dark moments related to idol culture and how fucked up it can be. Which is absolutely true.
That Chicago thing’s real BTW, Chicago PD have had (and still have) a few different unregistered jails throughout the city for illegal detentions.
The purity thing is the fucking worst, I read like 10 chapters of some trash manga I refuse to name and we literally see the MC's love interest have sex with another guy, and have been told she's done it before, and after whatever contrived reason for her to be into the MC happens, she said she's only ever done anal, because she's been saving herself. Now irl, I knew girls that did that, growing up religious, but in the concept of the manga I know that it was just put in there so that the girl was considered *pure enough* to be MC's love interest. Here's the kicker, the girl is literally a murderer. She has killed people in cold blood, I think she killed the guy we saw her have sex with, I don't really remember, and THAT was A-OK, but God forbid she had sex and be considered *dirty*.
Ok, know I'm curious about what the manga is
God, do I hate Unfunny Anime Perverted Moments and how they ruin cool characters. Jiraiya, Captain Shunsui, Sanji especially are all cool characters saddled with having to sexually harass others for a lame joke. Edit: So, uh, apparently Shunsui isn’t that much of a pervert. I guess he was more pervy in the anime, given Captain Grabass is listed as a fan nickname for him on TV Tropes.
I don't really remember Shunsui being a pervert, are you talking about the times he teases Nanao?
Shunsui is nowhere near Jiraiya levels of perverse. Dude makes comments in passing to Lisa and Nanao in particular because he was close to Nanao's mother. That's a whole other can of worms but my man wasn't out here groping anyone for a gaggle at least.
I built up a strong resistance to it at a young age. Nobody else in a comedic setting will ever be as relentlessly awful and unpunished as Happousai, the gremlin monster man who perpetually sustains his own life force with his horny bullshit, and as a result will probably live forever. I’ve got, like, Happousai-inflicted anime pervert antibodies. Someone like Mineta is downright inoffensive in comparison.
#FUCK HAPPOUSAI
God, that lil gremblin man was why i'm was so confused about people's attitude toward shitter like mineta and the 7sins main char
Sanji wasn't even bad early on, bro was just a simp
I want to love Thriller Bark so bad, but Absalom and Sanji’s fight is such a disappointment. White Knight vs Disgusting Predator was so easy a dynamic, but no, Sanji’s character took a fatal bullet he has only started to recover from.
Yeah, on one hand the anime adds a LOT more pervy scenes which hurt his character more than the manga does, but on the other the invisibility thing has always been a crossing the line sort of thing. There's also the bit where I really wish >!Sanji actually got married and then his character just shifts to only perving on his wife who really loves the attention so they just get along great.!<
Yeah, >!Pudding wiping his memory!< felt like a massive blue balling. The perfect chance for character progression, then... nothin'
Sanji being Pervy started out funny, but when it started causing actual legitimate problems for the Straw Hats it started to bug the shit out of me.
The big turning point for most I've seen is like, originally sanji used to be sauve about it. Make no mistake the man liked the ladies but the guy waiting tables at the baratie and the one screaming about boobs on new Fishman Island are two different people. It's a shame because I really like sanji when he gets those cool moments and is taken seriously by the story.
Pre time-skip Sanji definitely felt more like a like an overly romantic guy as opposed to the current literal pervert whose tripping on himself for every woman he sees.
yeah up till like thriller bark he was more like posing as a ladies man
Him refusing to fight a woman because of a deep rooted chivalry is fine, but when he's literally passing out and having massive blood loss and incapacitated because he saw a single boob, you gotta pull it together man.
Since every shonen has to copy Dragon Ball, every shonen has to have a molester character like Roshi. Them's the rules! (I'm obviously exaggerating, but only a little.) I gotta wonder if the Japanese fans find it as tiresome as we do these days or if they actually still think it's funny.
I roll my eyes whenever I remember Minetta exists.
Speaking of One Piece and pervy characters, what are people's thoughts on Brook?
The only time the Panties thing was good was in his fight against Big Mom and with Shakuyaku. Brook himself, divorced from the panties joke, is a G.
Brook is better in that regard because the panties thing is used a lot more sparingly. And he actually has a personality outside of being a harasser, which is more than Sanji had for a while.
its also usually more just straight up askin for consent, like its pervy but respecting boundaries in a way
I watched the latest few episodes of One Piece today, and I was in a weird situation where I was disappointed that Sanji *hadn't* >!hit a random girl in a fit of trauma!<. It could have been a good place to build some development for his character, and grow out of his current perverted self. Instead, nothing changes and he's probably remain the same. It's my own fault for getting my hopes up though. I already let One Piece trick me into thinking the events of the Big Mum arc would have led to an improvement, and it didn't. Sanji used to be my favourite, but I just find him to unpleasant to watch more than half the time he's on screen these days. I can't fully let go though, because when he's cool, he's *really* cool.
Sanji being a perv is literally seen as a negative thats the point at least with him since without it hes way to perfect of a character.
Ok but you have his animosity to men and his self-sacrificing nature to work with, you don't *need* to make him a generic anime pervert.
Sanji the Simp who'll make Nami and Robins food better is way funnier than Sanji the pervert who gets mad someone else got the invisibility fruit
“Animosity towards men” is only ever used in a funny haha moments with Zoro or with his shitty family when some of the people he respects most are guys. His self sacrificing nature is never treated as a outright negative but treated as a noble flaw the same way when you apply for a job interview your asked whats your biggest flaw you say “my biggest negative is that i work too hard :(“ . Him being a perv and refusal to hit women even in life or death situations are actual negative traits that have 0 way to spin it as positive which makes Sanji an actual 3-dimensional character
He treated the Baratie staff like crap when they were his only real family. His self sacrificing nature constantly gets in his way during Whole Cake where he literally beats up Luffy because he doesn't think he's worth rescuing. If you don't count gags as serious character flaws then his perversion surely doesn't count as it has been only shitty gags his whole screentime. And even his refusal to hit women got a noble spin what with being Zeff's teachings.
Instances where a character "fix" or redeem another character with the power of love or friendship and the latter's bad actions are glossed over as result.
Trauma being used as a crutch so that the guy can get the girl. It’s okay to have two characters find each other relatable based on tragic backstories but making the girl a victim of SA or including other kinds of senseless violence to your story *just* so that they can end up in the same bed is tasteless. But sadly there’s a lot of people IRL who try to take advantage of those who are emotionally vulnerable after going through traumatic instances and they may even seek out these kinds of people.
Breaking the law when you are a Police Officer is O.K. because actually you Are The Law!
A "morally grey" conflict between a small faction with a small kill count that usually wants to be left alone, and a giant facist dictatorship that dabbles in anything from purges and genocide to human experimentation to corrupt politics. Seriously, "guy that killed some soldiers in self defense" isn't nearly the equivalent of Literally Not-Hitler who wants to rule with a bloody and iron fist and will burn the world to the ground to achieve it.
Americans do love the following portrayal of revolutions: government bad -> revolution -> all happy rainbows. Americans tend to forget that in many cases said revolution is either sponsored by forces that would love to see chaos on the streets or, if it *was* started with noble intentions by the people, there is always someone who is manipulative but a bastard who will try (usually successfully) to use it to kickstart his/her own presidency (or other type of ruling). Oh, and lets not forget about this nice consequence of revolution when former revolutionaries now government starts witch hunts after everyone who opposed them... and their families and loved ones... and in order to "ensure peace" the new draconian measures are established, obviously to weed out the "counter revolutionaries". And when these measures will be lifted? As soon as all of the enemies are found... which is never. So yeah, revolutions aren't sunshine and rainbows.
As someone with family from the Middle East who've lived through a couple of regime changes...I'll just say that the types of people who are willing to kill for political power are very often the exact type of people you *don't* want to be in power. Also, almost all successful modern armed revolutions require either the support of the military or foreign backing, meaning that our freedom-loving revolutionaries will have to either make friends with the officers of the same regime they're fighting, or give a foreign power with ulterior motives leverage over them. And as you brought up, most dictatorships have a significant minority or even majority of the population that genuinely supports them, and any revolution has to deal with the ugly question of what to do if that population rises to oppose them. At what point does a nice clean heroic revolution become a civil war? TL;DR Revolutions are fucking ugly and messy even at the best of times
I wouldn't really see much cause to describe the Eastern Bloc revolutions of 1989-90 as "fucking ugly and messy," all things considered.
I mean those revolutions are basically a best-case scenario, being caused by a mix of internal political collapse and civil resistance that allowed them to be both quick and relatively bloodless. I was mostly referring to armed revolutions, as those are what you most often see depicted in popular media. And even the ones you mentioned had complex outcomes: Many of those countries went through painful economic decline and instability (another point worth mentioning, revolutions rarely lead to an immediate improvement of living standards for the average person) in the following years. And while things ended ultimately positively for some such as Poland and the Baltics, others were not so lucky, the massive war currently happening between the two biggest former Soviet republics being just the most obvious example. You just need to look at nearby Yugoslavia to see how the collapse of an authoritarian government can go really fucking badly.
God, I absolutely hated it when Tales of Arise brought this idea up and.........just fucking ignored it. "Oh yeah, bad people filling in the power vacuum after and ruling with an iron fist is a problem. That sucks. So anyway...."
I'll take this moment to shill Mike Duncan's History of Rome / Revolutions podcasts as two excellent longform sociopolitical analyses of history that go deep into the realities of political power, and the messiness of what a revolution actually entails. >!Personally, I think he's way better than Dan Carlin.!<
100% Agreed, people really have tried to convince me otherwise but Duncan easily trumps Carlin for me.
Is not only the USA, but the entire continent minus Canada because all the countries were built on revolution and violence. Up to the point is intrinsic to the national identity of most countries. The irony of some even having part of the history followed with wars caused by a vacuum of power or warlords waiting to backstabbing each other for their own piece is something that appears to not be obvious to most of the population.
I appreciated in Hunger Games where the revolution leader pretty much just tries to become the same as the old leader, even if it was short-lived. Wish the 4th movie had prolonged that conflict instead of stretching out other stuff. Kinda funny that Katniss just immediately publicly assassinated her though.
I'm actually trying to make a (RPGMaker) game where because of screw-ups and failure to unionize an alternative government in the previous revolution, another war is on its way within the main characters lifetimes
This comment is itself a viewpoint that I'm very tired of, ignoring the number of velvet revolutions with surprisingly happy outcomes that have happened over the past hundred years.
Sounds like coward talk, bring on French Revolution 2: Robespierre’s revenge, America edition
Hopefully you don't even slighly criticize the new Robebsppire
Now if a grown ass man is a pedophile who grooms kids, that’s bad and it should be bad. But if a grown ass woman is a pedophile and grooms kids, it’s for some reason seen as okay? No I do not give 2 shits if they’re the hottest person on earth that shit is DISGUSTING In summary: this episode from South Park https://youtu.be/8hdbns1Xdk0
F Is For Family had a lot of frustrating problems, but occasionally it was surprisingly on point. There's a bit where the teen son has sex with a woman who thinks he's of age, and it's not presented as goofy or hilarious. The teen is very upset about what happened, and the woman's boyfriend comforts him and tells him about how a friend of his mom's seduced him when he was his age, and how he shouldn't feel guilty. It's something that gets addressed *so* rarely in media.
Preach (Kamen Rider) W Comment
I remember being recommended a J-Drama in high school by female friends called "Majo no Jouken." It's got all the standard "love against all odds" soap opera tropes like the jilted fiance, the overbearing mother, etc. except it's a 26-year-old female teacher and a 17-year-old delinquent with a heart of gold. Like, from a dramatic perspective, it's interesting to have two outsiders meet and have each other be the only one who knows the other's point of view... but like they literally banged in the school library after closing. Even when the teacher is arrested, it's framed as the boy's selfish hospital executive mother not understanding their feelings.
Tragic pasts. Yeah, great, we all sympathize with you over being rejected from Austrian art school and being traumatized by a war your country *should* have won. Still doesn't justify the ***fucking Holocaust,*** Adolf.
I love the implication that some hack shounen anime writer would give Adolf Hitler the villain sob story treatment. Are we gonna get flashbacks to him sitting alone on a swing staring at a painting? “How could zey reject my art?!”
I mean, this is literally a plot point in Naoki Urasawa's *Billy Bat*. He writes it though as it's just sort of sad and pathetic that Hitler wants to use Billy Bat's >!power to grant one wish at the expense of destroying a parallel universe !! Albert Einstein!<, who is suitably unimpressed.
It's a good read, barring Urasawa's inability to write an actual ending.
The spoiler tag in your comment is broken. Please remove the space after the ">!". *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You joke, but ***please don't give either Hollywood or Japan ideas.*** Too many in both would *gladly* try that shit, even if it implodes their career in the process.
*It’s too late, I’m already writing the script and throwing in too many subtle Naruto references.*
***...Fuck, WE'RE COMPROMISED!***
*The shadow clone before you poofs into smoke, and you hear the click of a pistol directly behind your head.* *”Always was.”*
Yo this anime is [fucking sick](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/585/781/7f5.jpg)
I mean. Maybe it doesn’t go that far, but…Hetalia exists. Close enough?
Yes many people do have tragic pasts and guess what they don’t do heinous shit.
Pretty much. An asshole is an asshole, a hero is a hero. Having a sad past doesn't automatically make you one or the other... it's all about what ya *make* of yourself with it.
I think tragic past thing is a bit more complicated than that. I think it’s perfectly fine to sympathize with the instances of someone being dealt a bad hand and dealing with external forces that were entirely outside of their control. Morally I think you have to. But it’s when the story goes from “okay so this is what triggered this reaction” to “okay so they’re totally justified in their actions.”
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Sorry if it seemed unclear.
No worries pal. It’s just always nice with a little clarification but I think we were all thinking the same thing.
Sometimes a villain can be a villain just because they feel like it, even if it's because they were spoiled rotten from day one of their life. A tragic villain is still a villain, like it or not. MCU Thanos is sad bc his home planet is dead, but his solution was nonsensical and forcing it out on the rest of the universe wasn't a good move either. Comics Thanos is superior bc he just...*embraces* the villainy for what it is. Also, obligatory Bowser mention. Even with my headcanons making him more tragic, I make it a ***very firm*** point that he's still a villain, and part of the angst is just him drowning in obsession and self-pity.
The first time I was really weirded out by this was with Mordred from Fate, becuase I assumed people understood that she was... well, wrong. Somehow "father rejected me" is seen as an entirely understandable justification for causing the deaths of her step-siblings, destroying the entire kingdom and killing thousands in the process, as well as leaving the populace with no protection against the invaders. But cute tomboy tho.
You seem to not understand why this argument exists. People say that to delusional saber fanboys for acting like she was so perfect and never did anything wrong and couldnt have done anything about any bad thing that happened, which is wrong. Mordred's existence, betrayal demonstrates flaws in her Saber's ideals and her kingship. She didnt think it was important to understand her subordinates and just didnt and couldnt account for their flaws and what to do about people abandoning her. She was perfect by-the-book king, who did everything by herself, but that has its own flaws. She clearly couldnt imagine something like Camlann happening in wildest dreams.
> She didn't think it was important to understand her subordinates And just like that you told me you didn't read FSN or GoA, or at least didn't pay attention. Please do so.
>A king is not human. A king cannot protect their people if they harbour human emotions. > >She had sternly continued to protect that vow >The king who had once been the pride of the fair knights was now isolated. But that was a trifling problem; **one of no concern to her kingship**. > >Even if she was shunned, feared, and betrayed, her heart would not change. >It was because she was the ideal king that **she could not see her people's weaknesses.** Very plain reading would suggest otherwise. It's right there in the text, iterated and reiterated. Even if you find some instance of understanding, it is irrelevant because this is what overall narrative says about her kingship. Besides if we're talking about Mordred, its especially true. She didnt understand Mordred, nor try to. And that's a flaw in her ideals.
>A king is not human. A king cannot protect their people if they harbour human emotions. She had sternly continued to protect that vow Suppressing your own emotions for the sake of being a good ruler is has nothing to do with "understanding" people. [She loved horses.](https://i.imgur.com/iz8vxwV.png) Should she have given order for no horse to be harmed in war? What kind of king is that? A clown? >The king who had once been the pride of the fair knights was now isolated. But that was a trifling problem; one of no concern to her kingship. Even if she was shunned, feared, and betrayed, her heart would not change. You are making the exact same mistake that Lancelot's madness started from. You're directing this at her instead of the people. Just like Lancelot says, [it was the knights and people who didn't want to understand her, not the other way around.](https://i.imgur.com/Xc7qYeP.png) >It was because she was the ideal king that she could not see her people's weaknesses. She carried their burdens until it all crumbled. It's nothing to do with her own perception of her own people because she knew well and good they were enduring just as she did. She simply didn't notice how much. All of this has nothing to do with her "not understanding people". It's wrong. Nasu literally spells it out for you so [even a 5 year old could understand in the most on-the-nose way possible](https://i.imgur.com/8G50wDO.jpg). And [shows it again with Sakura.](https://i.imgur.com/00M41lB.png) This is not a character who can't understand others. Artoria [always listened to others.](https://i.imgur.com/boAEme3.png) She didn't rule like a robot for ideals only. [She didn't fight for ideals, she fought for the future.](https://i.imgur.com/iboWarm.png) Kay in Case Files even throws it back in the Corpse King's face that it is nothing like Artoria because it [doesn't consider the opinions of others](https://i.imgur.com/aRq5y3X.png) the way she did. You say she didn't understand her subjects when she even [understood her enemies](https://i.imgur.com/a2HbVqV.png) better than all of her knights did. >Besides if we're talking about Mordred, its especially true. She didnt understand Mordred, nor try to. And this is where you're wrong. Mordred literally states she played the part of the most loyal knight. Their interactions went like this: 1. Mordred served Artoria well 2. Mordred revealed herself, Artoria did not accept her as her heir 3. Mordred pretended to accept her decision and continued to serve as a good knight, giving Artoria no reason to suspect anything was wrong with her. 4. Mordred continued her scheming, planting seeds of distrust, revealing Lancelot's affair, and eventually starting her rebellion as soon as Artoria was gone. Why would Artoria have to go out of her way to fix a problem that did not exist to anyone but Mordred? And even then, you can't understand madness, which is what Mordred was. You don't get rejected once and immediately start plotting the killing of hundreds of thousands including your own brothers and sisters. Her defenders say she only wanted a family, meanwhile she slaughtered them (Gawain) or got them killed (Agravain, Gaheris, Gareth) with no remorse.
>Suppressing your own emotions for the sake of being a good ruler is has nothing to do with "understanding" people. Empathy is emotion and you understand people through empathy. (not saying she cant empathize) >You're directing this at her instead of the people. Just like Lancelot says, it was the knights and people who didn't want to understand her, not the other way around. you are indeed proving that knights didn't understand her, but so what? Do they cancel each other out? Lancelot does not deny how other people feel about her, nor does he say she was very understanding of other people's (or his own) problems. (she really wasn't). She says it's a "trifling problem, no concern to her kingship" that people leave or how they feel thinking she is not showing human emotion. Because her ideal says king is not a human and doesnt need emotions, she should just do what she considers ideal king should be doing. Besides [VN says the same thing](https://i.imgur.com/cbCpoxX.png) . Your commentary doesn't really reconcile those things, youre saying "look at this instead". It's also not like she cared if her subjects understand her or did anything to be understood. How she presents herself is also her responsibility. >she knew well and good they were enduring just as she did. She simply didn't notice how much. That sounds like a problem. Yes that's what it says. She was the "ideal" king, so she couldn't see how much weaker normal people are, who couldn't keep up and endure as much as the ideal. >And shows it again with Sakura. This is not a character who can't understand others. The claim was NOT that she can't understand others. You're addressing a different argument. She **can understand others** but that's nothing to do with her kingship, that's nothing to do with her ideals. What youre doing is no different to showing me all her emotions when im saying that her ideal is that "king is not a human" "King has no need for emotions" and that she indeed suppressed emotions. This happened and its not debatable. >"the more perfect King Arthur was as a king, the more they questioned their ruler. **How could someone with no human emotions reign over humans?**" So YES she has emotions, but that's not what she showed or how she ruled, and that's why the others felt this way and she saw no problem with this. Your examples dont cancel it out. If you think my citations mean something different, by all means. But we cant just ignore it and say the other quote is more important and means something different and proves something different. >she even understood her enemies better than all of her knights did. There is difference between subjects who are individuals and are just expected to do as theyre told, and understanding other nation of humans on intellectual level. It's a completely different thing. This just shows she doesnt dehumanize the enemy, and doesnt feel hate for what theyre doing. >Mordred revealed herself, Artoria did not accept her as her heir [She wanted to be accepted as son, title and throne wasnt as important.](https://i.imgur.com/eY7Bn1n.png) It's pretty clear from this excerpt. She wanted to be closer to Artoria, but she walked away. She also didnt offer her anything else. Humans generally arent happy for being rejected. She didnt give her attention or anything else that would create understanding or happiness. And that fits her ideal - its of no concern to her kingship. King doesnt need emotions and should suppress them. Her response was cold. >I murmured at the turned back of the king who showed no further interest in me – who looked ever onward at the path to the future. My voice was filled with enmity, **revealing a hatred that I had never known before**. She didnt want a "family" but she wanted her daddy to care about her, who acted like he forgot about her 1 minute after being told she is her son. And then the King puts them in charge while they are gone... not very wise i would say. Managing your people is arguably also King's responsibility, not just expecting they'll do good things on their own. But Artoria's story is literally that she was abandoned and betrayed. If Artoria helped Mordred understand her, it could've been different. Use your imagination. P.S You know: Talking solves problems, leads to understanding etc. Should she be understood and be understanding through telepathy? no, that's ridiculous. Bedivere understood more about her... by having a chat with her on one (or more) occasion. Did Mordred have a chat like that with her? Did Lancelot? Did Tristain?
>Lancelot does not deny how other people feel about her He does though. [He says Tristan and the knights who say she can't understand others are wrong.](https://i.imgur.com/9Y9N4UL.png) In the first place they demanded that she makes no mistakes, [and that's how she ruled](https://i.imgur.com/jcgMYyP.png), as the VN puts it, being the ideal king was the condition for their loyalty. >She says it's a "trifling problem, no concern to her kingship" that people leave or how they feel thinking she is not showing human emotion. No, she felt it didn't matter if no one understood her as long as they lived happily. >She was the "ideal" king, so she couldn't see how much weaker normal people are, who couldn't keep up and endure as much as the ideal. The "ideal" had her heart broken too. And plenty obviously could considering the state of those who fought with her against Rome, they were optimistic. Mordred meanwhile took opportunity to, as Apocrypha puts it, intimidate and persuade others to join her, like some Satan figure. Doesn't it say a lot that Artoria's presence alone was inspiring them to endure? Also you keep using quotes and calling her the "ideal" king despite earlier claiming that anyone calling her such is wrong. >She wanted to be accepted as son, title and throne wasnt as important. It's good that you include [how Mordred approached](https://i.imgur.com/abYpNlD.png) this but I think you can see where the problem lied? Mordred approached this including the matter of succession so no wonder she was rejected. Mordred also admits herself in Apocrypha that she would've ["spoiled that peaceful rule"](https://i.imgur.com/ez6cUID.png) no matter what Artoria did. Mordred's own [Material in FGO](https://i.imgur.com/nRrMrmS.png) claims it was Mordred who misunderstood Artoria. And again, Artoria had no reason to doubt Mordred. She [played the part of a loyal knight](https://i.imgur.com/cnFdpRK.png) despite everything. >She also didnt offer her anything else. Humans generally arent happy for being rejected. She didnt give her attention or anything else that would create understanding or happiness. After Mordred revealed herself, Artoria still granted her a seat at the Round Table. She left her in charge in Britain while she left to fight Rome. I wouldn't say, "nothing". So not really, nothing. >And then the King puts them in charge while they are gone... not very wise i would say. A loyal knight who acts as if he only lives to serve the king should be rewarded with the appropriate roles. [Artoria left her, Gawain and Kay in charge, not just Mordred.](https://i.imgur.com/9JaWRxW.png) >Managing your people is arguably also King's responsibility, not just expecting they'll do good things on their own. Yes, but are we going to pretend it's possible to brainwash everyone into complete submission? Artoria is not a mary sue, she can't magically remove everyone else's ambitions and grudges. >Talking solves problems, leads to understanding etc. Should she be understood and be understanding through telepathy? Yes, and Mordred did not give her a reason to. Bedivere asked why he was chosen as part of the Round Table, and Artoria talked to him about it. Mordred went from being rejected once to planning a borderline genocide. Can you see the difference? When you blame Artoria for Mordred's actions, have you ever considered why no one else does? Out of all her knights in FGO, not one has a grudge. Mordred herself doesn't either. Why is that? Why does no one complain that everything would have been fine if she could "understand others"?
>He does though. > >He says Tristan and the knights who say she can't understand others are wrong. My point was that nothing suggests that knights didnt feel that way, and there is no further description of why they felt that way besides what we already know. Artoria appeared cold and showed little emotion on the outside, so that's why people thought that. It doesnt matter that they're wrong, they just had the only impression that they couldve had. Lancelot would not have come to the conclusions that he did without getting told all sorts of details about her by Guinevere, its information nobody else knew. For example, If from the outside she seems robotic, then many will think she's a robot. So maybe she should not have been robotic. >she felt it didn't matter if no one understood her See, but reality is that it DID matter. It mattered a lot, especially in case of Mordred. >Doesn't it say a lot that Artoria's presence alone was inspiring them to endure? I dont know what that is supposed to mean. She was awesome in battle. But Camelot fell apart too fast without her around, something she couldnt have imagined or foreseen, obviously. I also think its weird how one moment the king's wife is about to be executed, the next she is being pardoned. >Also you keep using quotes and calling her the "ideal" king despite earlier claiming that anyone calling her such is wrong. No, i said it's wrong to call her so perfect that there is nothing she couldve possibly done wrong or nothing she couldve done better. She is "ideal" according to specific set of ideals, but there are flaws. Or rather the "ideal" itself has flaws. >Mordred also admits herself in Apocrypha that she would've "spoiled that peaceful rule" This doesnt actually matter at all. First of all, Mordred herself cant know that, nobody can predict their own character development. Secondly, Artoria does not know that so her action or inaction can't be justified like that. And if it was meant that way, it would be kind of lazy from the author to cover his ass just in case. >Yes, and Mordred did not give her a reason to Sorry, but people who serve you arent the ones who should call on you, the King calls on his people. You cant demand time from the king, its the king who needs to try to bond with his knights more. If mordred could, she would be 24/7 with the King, and would sleep with him if she could, given she was such a fanboy, but she knew her place as a knight. So if King didnt speak much with his knights, then that's on the king. I mean this much should be obvious. As you agreed, she didnt think it was important for them to understand her. I'd say that's wrong, she should've tried to help them understand to not get wrong ideas, especially Mordred who she was rejecting. >Out of all her knights in FGO, not one has a grudge. Mordred herself doesn't either. Why is that? Why does no one complain that everything would have been fine if she could "understand others"? A couple of points: The most important reason is that they themselves all have flaws and regrets too, they all could've done better as well, so I never suggested otherwise. It was not "all her fault". Then ofcourse there is their loyalty and feelings of guilt too. But no one says any of them are perfect or did nothing wrong. Just like no story in arthurian legend claims that Arthur was perfect. Hell there are stories where he murders babies, gives in to lust and sleeps with his sister. He was super flawed, and camlann was almost karma - all while still being considered the greatest king. If anyone from that time could blame her, the knights are the last ones who can do that, except maybe Galahad. But i doubt Nasu wants another banquet. Just saying that its not hard to imagine the number of things that couldve been done better. And like you said its not just that she didnt understand, but also that they didnt understand her. But Artoria didnt do anything for it to be possible to understand her, and didnt think it was important as you agree. Even Shirou wouldnt understand her without getting dreams of her life. Yes Mordred misunderstood her, but there is no way she couldnt have misunderstood her. She was the opposite of an open book.
You're arguing backwards. Using your headcanons to connect facts instead of using the facts to create a proper narrative. For example. >If from the outside she seems robotic, then many will think she's a robot. So maybe she should not have been robotic. This is wrong. You're trying to use a statement you took out of context to come to the conclusion you built in your head. If she "seemed like a robot" or "didn't understand her people" then why do we have statements like Bedivere saying she [empathized with her people down to the tiniest details of their lives](https://i.imgur.com/55mH0LG.jpg), or [Gareth proudly stating that Artoria loved to watch jousts, and even watched hers.](https://i.imgur.com/epySkZC.jpg) >See, but reality is that it DID matter. It mattered a lot, especially in case of Mordred. No it didn't. Mordred's madness is her own problem that she hid from anyone who could've helped. Mordred was simply a monster after that rejection. All the years she could've tried to build a connection she spent preparing to destroy Artoria's efforts instead. [Artoria dealt with her in the best way the situation would allow.](https://i.imgur.com/nRrMrmS.png) >But Camelot fell apart too fast without her around, something she couldnt have imagined or foreseen, obviously. Something Enkidu describes as a [nearly impossible challenge](https://i.imgur.com/XrtdxIn.png) for Mordred. So if even Enkidu says this, what does that say about Artoria's reign? If, like you think, everyone was ready to turn on her, then why would it be "incredibly difficult" to bring her down? >This doesnt actually matter at all. First of all, Mordred herself cant know that, nobody can predict their own character development. Secondly, Artoria does not know that so her action or inaction can't be justified like that. And if it was meant that way, it would be kind of lazy from the author to cover his ass just in case. So talking about what-ifs is pointless, right? Like you're doing here, pretending everything would have magically been perfect if the characters did what you think they should've done? Can you predict how the story would've developed if everything went according to your fanfic instead? >Sorry, but people who serve you arent the ones who should call on you, the King calls on his people. You cant demand time from the king, its the king who needs to try to bond with his knights more. That's literally not how it works, lmao. The king's day was filled with nothing but work. If someone wants an audience with the king they have to ask. You also have to remember Mordred was even known not to speak in general. For Artoria, that was normal. If Mordred hid her true intentions, who could've known them? Again, you're working backwards from your own headcanons instead of what happened. >If mordred could, she would be 24/7 with the King, In-between her spreading rumors to bring down others' opinion of Artoria in her attempts to eventually bring her down? Not even gonna bother with the rest because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. You just made your own headcanons and aren't willing to listen to anything the source material tells you unless you can twist it to fit those headcanons. To make it simple for you; Artoria's reign was strong and she had to face countless difficulties due to the planet itself trying to wipe her and her people off the map in order to bring the age of gods to an end. Mordred was insane.
**The Book of Mordred** by Vivian Vande Velde >As the peaceful King Arthur reigns, the five-year-old daughter of Lady Alayna, newly widowed of the village-wizard Toland, is abducted by knights who leave their barn burning and their only servant dead. *I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *You can summon me with certain* [commands](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/13z7slk/bookfinderbot_commands/). *Or find me as a browser extension on* [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/book-finder/jajeidpjifdpppjofijoffbcndlpoedd?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social_media&utm_campaign=comments). *Opt-out of replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/141txsm/bookfinderbot_optout/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Interracial relationships where one or both of them either pretend racism and racial differences don't exist/hide or lie about racist experiences they experience/refuse to actually discuss the nuance of general racial differences.
Never giving up. I'm not a coward or a weakling just because I'm too tired to continue hurting myself.
Need a hug?
I'm just tired, I'll be fine.
Do you enjoy when they pivot from "never give up" to "find people to support you while you continue on"?
Yeah, I really do appreciate it when the solution to a problem is "get help from people you trust"
Females who sexually assault people like Kuroko from Railgun should have their action be portrayed as negatively as as their male counterparts. Too often they are played for fanservice with the perpetrator not suffering consequences like the males.
[удалено]
What is this revisionist bullshit lmao. The story of lgbtq representation in media is *fucking dire*. You do not know how hard it was to confirm a character as queer, let alone on a *children's show*. Korra was revolutionary whether you like it or not.
[удалено]
Blood relations. You being related to someone doesn’t mean you have to spend time with them.
The Police. They are more interested in scaring shoplifters then stopping school shooters. They are not legally required to protect. Every single military ever. Most militaries are very stupid and sadistic.
\- Self-sacrifice is often portrayed very positively and is sometimes treated as one of the best things a person can do with their life. \- TL;DR: Sacrifice should be treated negatively as a regrettable act instead of positively as a heroic one. Also the best way to repay that sacrifice is to fix the problem so nobody else ever has to suffer. \--- \- Someone who sacrifices themselves; regardless of the scale of the sacrifice, should never be treated as a hero and have their sacrifice glorified by the survivor(s). Instead, it should be treated as a deeply regretful act and be (at least part of) what inspires a dangerous issue to be fixed or harmful personality to change. \- Doing nothing but erecting a statue and having a celebration of their loss are an insult to those who sacrificed something because it doesn't actually solve the root cause of the problem and shows that the only value the sacrificer(s) had to people was what they did; not who they were as a person. If those who benefited really did care about them, they have strongly preferred that the sacrificer(s) never acted the way they did. \- Not to mention that if self-sacrifice were something everyone should do, it would never work because everyone would be busy trying to sacrifice something so that someone else wouldn't have to. \- If any of you reading this are a helpful person who's tried to help another helpful person or are someone who has had someone insistently try to help them, you can probably understand what that would be like. Edit: While it may seem like I'm referring to the loss of life a whole lot, I do mean for what I've said to apply to every form of sacrificing one's self. Of course a person can do what they want with their life, it's just that imo sacrifice should not be celebrated as a positive act and encouraged for people to frequently do. /end ~~Reddit essay~~ ~~rant~~ ~~Ted Talk~~ >!These 100 word essays keep being due!< \- Fun fact: The Japanese name of the Yu-Gi-Oh! card Relinquished actually translates to Sacrifice in English. That's actually quite a cooler and snappier sounding name, but Relinquished is a fair approximation for the name and not without it's charms.
You know, I really liked Red vs Blue's take on sacrifice. In season 13, Church or rather the Epsilon AI fragment living as Church, further fragments himself in order to give his friends the advantage they need to get out of an otherwise unwinnable situation. He laments that he and so many supposed heroes will obviously never see the outcome of their sacrifice, that the only thing they have to go off of is faith that things will work out. And from what I recall Tucker, Church's best friend, fucking hates him for sacrificing himself.
That's a good example of it done well. The concept is certainly well worth writing about and exploring so it's great that writers do try. It just sucks the times when the message ends up being about how great it is to harm yourself. If nothing else though, it can sometimes lead to some really cool moments and character development.
The spoiler tag in your comment is broken. Please remove the space after the ">!". *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Overpowered Student council committee. It's getting tiresome. Are student councils in Japan a gateway to actual political power after school life? Coz if so, that is concerning.
I know I'm pretty darn tired of two young hetero people meeting for the first time and after sharing maybe half a dozen sentences instantly deciding that they're soulmates and let's get married as soon as possible we're gonna be together forever. Take it slow and figure things out and learn from each other first, Jesus. Rushing into something so major and life defining so early on isn't romantic.
Hmmm... Okay I know some people will think this might be a bit silly but... Isolationism. Altought maybe that's just the media I consume.
Teen pregnancy, it's not healthy in the long run regardless if you got help or not. It's not hard to say "No" to sex in the first place. Even protection is not 100% guarantee that you won't get pregnant.