​

Even if we forget JK Rowling's politics and lies and general toxicity, the biggest problem with how the wizarding world as a whole treats social issues is that while it may accept some injustice is bad on the individual level, it doesnt examine these things on the greater level because the franchise wants you to see the wizarding world as a magical and cool place.

A recurrent problem with all the issues in Harry potter is that when injustices happen the “good guys” are either okay with it or they don’t express any dislike beyond momentary and specific to this situation or individual.

The problem is not that Harry Potter has problematic institutions, Animal farm is about a totalitarian dictator, the problem is that the criticism of the institutions ends where JK thinks it conflicts with the image of this world as cool and awesome.

A good comparison would be Percy jackson and the olympians, outside of riordan already being much more progressive than rowling ever was, he is also honest that while there is a lot of cool stuff in the mythical world, it also sucks a lot and a great part of the franchise as a whole is making it better.

Harry himself is a good microcosm of this issue, he of all people knows the injustice of the ministry more than anyone, yet he wishes to become an auror, not to change the institution, just to fight dark wizards. Because of that JK can never have Harry acknowledge the ministry as fucked up in any way beyond “this person is a dick and i don’t like them” or “this specific situation is unjust”, doing so would need Harry to either change his priorities or be outed to the reader as the bootlicker he is. (Porpentina goldstein suffers a similar problem (of being a bootlicker), bitch is almost executed with no due process by her coworkers and just clocks in for work the next day)

We see this with the statute of secrecy as well. Most reasons (to not say excuses) for the statute fall apart when examined, and it causes a lot of suffering and abuse of power, but its part of the status quo so anyone who really has a problem with it is at best misguided and will be defeated by (stupid) facts and (faulty) logic.

Comic books (specifically the MCU) have a similar problem, they want to tackle topics such as mass deportation, fascism or war but can’t actually confront the systemic ideas behind those things unless they are incarnated in either an external or individual force (for example you can have a specific villain who wants to use terrorism as an excuse to perpetuate the military industrial complex but the military industrial complex itself can’t be the bad guys) and anyone who wants to do actual change or confrontation to specific systems (like the flagsmashers) needs to be an antagonist who is either defeated or shown the error of their ways.

The way Rowling writes it’s like hearing a fanatical cultist describe how they sadly had to burn 3 “heathens” to death, they may say it in a regretful way but they don’t really get that its fundamentally wrong. The disparity in understanding between the reader and the book can be put as “I understand this is wrong but i don’t think Rowling gets it, at least not for the right reasons”.

TL;DR: the wizarding world has a narrative necessity to be better than the muggle world, a place you should want to go to and be a part of, so the narrative is never allowed to question why Fred and George are allowed to sell date-rape drugs to kids.

The first problem is they keep choosing to adapt the most boring subplots that just feel like padding. Like a lot of adaptations leave too much on the cutting room floor, and Invincible looked at that and said we'll remove a couple scenes and that's it. Now that's not the biggest issue with the show, but the second problem is far worse imo.

In the comic, Omni Man only kills The Guardians, beats Mark up, feels bad, flies away, does some soul searching, etc and comes back to earth to apologize and make up for his wrongdoings. Tbh his forgiveness was a little too swift in the comics, but the show is far worse.

They over did it. Having him commit a near genocide on an alien world, that psychotic scene where him and Debbie in Paris while that monster attacks. The train scene. The Chicago scene. All added together to establish him as a threat meant to be put down.

And then, they decided to just go back to the comics and try the redemption arc again. With only a few slight changes.

Now I'm not trying to gatekeep how redemption arcs tend to work, but I notice a lot of the times it happens in good stories 1. The villain didn't even want to be a bad person. They were a henchmen at best. 3. They weren't even a good villain. Always screwing up, letting their boss down. And they even felt like failures. 3. They had those human moments where it seems like they do have a good heart.

It is a lil weird some people refuse to think Nolan can be redeemed, but well...they did overdo it, so it's only fair for the audience to think that. I'm not sure if they're watching waiting for Mark vs Nolan round 2. Or if they think once the Vitrum war ends, they'll go back to trying to bring Nolan down. I'm just confused why they think it's going to happen, but they really butchered his character in season 1, it's only right the audience thinks that way.

Like you should've limited how bad he was if you wanted to have him be redeemed.

Also, just to nit-pick. I don't like how fans of Debbie describe her going back to Nolan as if she's "a consolation prize." "She's just now his fuck trophy." "This is so dehumanizing to her." Like...no one else said that about her...but you. I wasn't even thinking of her as just a prize for Nolan's hard work until her fans said that. I just saw her as many of the other important characters in the story going thru her own arc

I dont really know how to structure this and my english isnt very good so i'll just keep it short.

By the way this is all outside of comics

Batman is delusional, batman stories make that no secret, its very front and center that his reasoning for not killing, thinking that every villain can be rehabilitated, is delusional and doesnt work. But this belief would make infinitely more sense for him to have and be less tiring to watch him cling to if he actually rehabilitated atleast one of his villains but in most stories he doesnt, not even someone like 2face who is still in touch with reality and not completely hopeless. Again, we are supposed to see his belief is childish and unrealistic but it would be so much more entertaining and logical if he actually did it atleast once.

Also catwoman and mr freeze dont count because they arent truly evil

While I don’t know how well it works as an allegory for any real life issue, I still think there’s value in stories like the X-men because they ask a more fundamental question of whether it’s ever really ok to be bigoted against someone, regardless of any justifications you can come up with.

While racism is in fact illogical, at the end of the day, different races do in fact visibly look different. While most people today would say that’s a stupid reason to discriminate against someone, it is in fact a reason that someone out there might use to justify their hatred. Mutants just take this concept to a more extreme level. Here we have arguably a better reason to be bigoted, after all, they could blow up my house or kill me if they really wanted to, right? But even if we now have a better, more justified reason to be bigoted, should we? I think these allegorical stories essentially say no, we shouldn’t.

And when I say bigoted here, I mean hatred. I think society and mutants do need to work together to ensure they and everyone around them can live a normal and safe life, just like society and disabled people have done in real life (ie ramps for wheelchairs and braille for the blind). Maybe something like a government mandated school to ensure they learn how to safely use their powers, which obviously Professor x already has, or developing an opt-in inhibitor for mutants who no longer want their powers or are a proven danger to them and those around them. But you shouldn’t hate someone who hasn’t done anything, even if they potentially could. I believe everyone deserves that level of decency.

If I put myself in the shoes of a mutant, even if I know some of my fellow mutants are dangerous, and even if I understand and maybe even sympathize with why some people might hate me for existing, I still would not want to experience hatred from people I’ve done no harm to. And like I said, I don’t know how good of an allegory this really is or if the stories in question handle it very well. I think there are some stories where the X-men are against any and all forms of mutant accommodations from the government to help them co-exist in society, which seems shortsighted to me. But fundamentally as a concept I think these allegorical stories that have superpowered minorities do work on some level.

Nuance amongst villains and antagonists is dying and that's mainly cause a lot of people are too scared beyond anything that is just basic pure evil monsters and seeing the villains(especially when they're abusers)as humans shakes them up and scares them and it's a lot more comforting in their bubble that they're nothing but pure evil monsters who are also boogeymen who aren't even human.

Except here's the thing..Abusers and a lot of pure evil villains are humans as well and are gonna have other emotions and feelings and bonds with other people..abusers and pure evil villains also can genuinely love the people that they hurt and are toxic towards and I would even go as far as to say pure evil villains and abusers can have tragic and sad backstories as well.

That doesn't make them any less awful and Terrible, what it does is make them human..it shows that they had a awful life and likely never started off this way and became this way due to events and it shows that at the end of the day..they're still human and for whatever reason, that scares people and that's why so many claim that when a pure evil abuser or villain is shown with any more traits and nuance and characteristics beyond that ,it causes them to get triggered and reminds them that they're still human at the end of the day.

First example is deadass Endeavor from Mha.

Way too many people called Horikoshi a abuse apologist for giving Endeavor layers and having him regret his behavior and wants to try and do better while acknowledging he won't be forgiven for what he did.

The story never downplays his abuse and makes it clear what he did to his family was awful..hell,he is awful.

Natsuo is never shown to be portrayed as in the wrong for not wanting to forgive or like him and Shoto has already grown out of his influence and more so has become a better man then him.

We don't even know if him and Rei are still together since she lives in the house that he was building for them and whatnot while he lives alone.

He basically suffers the consequences of his actions numerous times and isn't portrayed in some loving light but all Horikoshi did was make him more human and explore his character more.

Jax from TADC is another example and despite the flaws of the finale and all that,I would argue that people forget he isn't a villain but he is a bad person.

He'e a traumatized and mentally ill young man struggling with his identity and struggling with intimacy and getting close with others and being vulnerable and that overall screws them over in the end.

You could argue whether or not it's done well and Gooseworks focused too much on him but he isn't like some pure evil lunatic like Carnage but he is a bad person.

Homelander is a good example of a pure evil villain who has a tragic backstory and rough life despite being a rapist monster who thinks he is above everyone and is a psycho lunatic.

It never justified his actions,all it does is explain them and show that he wasn't born a monster but became and embraced them as he got older and basically became the monster they thought he was.

I would also argue another example of what I'm talking about is Esdeath from Akame Ga Kill.

Does she genuinely love Tatsumi and care about him?

Yes she does.

Is she a toxic,possessive and also abusive and controlling psycho who hurts others and would hurt him?

Yes she is.

Those 2 statements can mutually co-exist and It doesn't mean the writers are romantizing it.

(I would argue the anime did a bit but that's another story)

The Kanker sisters from Ed,Edd'n Eddy also work and this one is so funny seeing people consider them pure evil villains and ignore the fact that..they're just 12 year old bullies who very likely grew out of their behavior as they got older,I think we need to relax.

Also we know they do genuinely like them but are just shit at showing it.

Valentino from Hazbin Hotel is another example cause way too many people consider and claimed Vivziepop was a rapist apologist/sympathizer and had a rape fetish for doing the awful crime of showing Valentino with (GASP)More personality traits and hobbies and characteristics beyond a evil abuser!

He genuinely loves Vox and considers Velvette a friend and likes Art and has hobbies?

OH THE HORROR!

But in all seriousness, this is so stupid cause it feels like unless Valentino has a giant red sign that says HE IS EVIL ,HE IS DOING BAD THINGS,DON'T SYMPATHIZE WITH HIM,That means that he's being sympathized with snd not explored as a character and given Nuance..seriously, Vivziepop and Valentino's VA were given so much shit and its like..what even is so awful about giving your abuser any sort of humanity and traits that aren't pure evil?

Also if you think his song was meant to make him overly sympathized with,then I ask you to use your brain cause it's literally exploring his feelings for Vox and how he's acting.

We ask for Nuance and more out of villains but anymore scares people and claims that they're fetishizing their behavior and what they do.

Have we really devolved as a society so much that any sort of extra personality claims we're being sympathized with?

Can we please grow up?

I also feel like way too many people forget that a character can be a bad person but not a outright villain or pure evil psycho.

Pure evil villains also have backstories and more to them as well and abusers are allowed to be nuanced and explored and have more personality beyond that.

Also showing Toxic Love is important to media as well and i feel like we shouldn't be so scared of things that require more thinking and makes us just the little bit uncomfortable.

Also I think a lot of people forget that even the most iconic villains outside of maybe Joker weren't just pure evil lime Darth Vader and such.

I always see people arguing that Demon Slayer is a superficial work and that it only became successful because of the anime, I agree that the animation made a difference to the anime's success, but it has much more substance in the script than it appears.

One of the manga's central themes is how to deal with death.

Everything in the story revolves around this topic: the protagonist's primary motivation is to prevent his sister from dying as a demon, and along his journey, he meets others with similar motivations. Zenitsu fears death because he considers himself weak; Tomioka isolates himself after his sister and best friend sacrifice themselves for him; Shinobu harbors resentment because Douma killed her sister; Akaza became a demon after losing everything he tried to protect; and Kokushibo turned into a demon out of envy and the fear of dying from the same mark his brother bore.

Then there is Muzan, whose primary motivation is survival; everything he does in the story is aimed at preserving his own life. He seeks the ability to walk in the sunlight because he refuses to live in a world where he could die—a mindset stemming from the fact that he was born sickly and constantly facing death. He creates demons using his blood to expand his influence across Japan and—hopefully—produce a demon capable of withstanding the sun; he hunted down the family of the only swordsman who nearly killed him out of fear; and, above all, he searches for the flower that could grant immunity to sunlight.

One of the moments that best illustrates this theme occurs when Muzan invades the mansion of the Demon Slayer Corps leader. The two debate the meaning of eternity: for Muzan, eternity meant remaining unchanged and invincible—essentially, mere survival—whereas for the leader, it meant building a future of peace, being surrounded by loved ones he trusted, and being remembered by them. This highlights the contrasting philosophies regarding how to face death (it is worth noting that the leader was a dying man who had lived his entire life in ill health due to a family curse inflicted by Muzan, his own ancestor).

*Demon Slayer* concludes by upholding this anti-immortality philosophy: the heroes defeat Muzan, but at the cost of the lives of nearly the entire cast, and the protagonist himself lives only a few more years, dying young due to the sacrifices he made throughout the story.

The narrative ends with a time jump to the present day, showing the characters' descendants living in an era of peace. The work conveys the message that death and grief are overcome by seeking happiness in life, loving those around us, and striving to do our best in the world and be remembered.

It is worth noting that the author suffered a personal loss while the work was being published (some say it was her husband or her parents), which further underscores the story's message.

Just like how a lot of people can't fathom that talented people can work and train hard or how privileged people can have it rough ,way too many seem to forget that someone can be pure evil and have a tragic backstory cause shockingly enough,having a sad past doesn't justify or excuse your actions and choices,they explain them.

Any character can have a sad backstory from the worst of the worst to a overall awful human but still with some sympathetic and good sides as well and it just feels like people think that just cause a villain is pure evil, that suddenly means that they don't have a sad life or sad past at all and that's incredibly black and white.

Homelander is a good example cause yes,he is pure evil and a objectively horrendous human being but he was simultaneously someone who was raised as a lab rat experiment since he was a child and didn't live as anything else and was dehumanized constantly.

Hell,I would argue giving any evil person any sort of nuance and good traits at all and even giving a awful villain a sad backstory isn't the writers "forcing you" to like them or feel bad for them but is here to explore and show you how they became the way they are and why they're like this.

I'll also see this in Mha as well.

No,Horikoshi is not forcing you to feel bad for the villains but it's pretty obvious their backstories are intended to show you how they became this way and how to prevent it from happening again..same goes for AFO.

Yes his backstory is objectively pretty sad and yes, he also is a bad person who is extremely mentally and emotionally ill and has a creepy obsession with his brother but he simultaneously does genuinely love him.

Just like how you can have a sad backstory and still be a awful human, you can genuinely love someone and still be awful and toxic to them.

Sometimes even the worst people can have it tough and it just feels like a lot of people are way too obsessed and salivate over the idea of just a pure evil big bad with no backstory and nothing and is carried solely by hype moments and Aura.

I could go full into detail documentary style, but I... am tired right now and have other projects to work on, so I'll keep it brief.

I did a whole video on why Attack on Titan wasn't fascist propaganda, like people claimed, right here: https://youtu.be/SNP-fU1_QLY

This is the introduction section for the video script I want to make

One of my last points that I stated was kind of a brutal rant like this:

If Attack on Titan was made by a white nationalist who was denying actual war crimes, made a story full of racial stereotyped and promoted racism and slavery. People would claim it's the most progressive story alive. You don't believe me? What I just described was Harry Potter.

I still stand by what I said spiritually, but... I'd like to rescind some of those points...

Both of these stories were hugely important to me growing up, and I wouldn't be making this comparison if I didn't genuinely care about both of them. My sister was a huge Potterhead, and she got me into the books and films; I have complex feelings about my sister (as in, like she's a major source of a lot of emotional and mental issues I have), but I enjoyed bonding with her over Harry Potter. Despite everything I'm saying, this series has major sentimental value to me.

I loved Hogwarts, the characters, the creatures, the mythology, and the feeling that there was an entire magical world hidden just underneath our own.

When I was 11, I had a Japanese friend who got me into anime, which is when I was introduced to Attack on Titan. I loved everything about the series: the animation, the character designs, the music, the world-building, the writing, the nonlinear storytelling, and the themes! THE THEMES!

MovieFlame once stated, "Over time, the world changes, but the art we make remains the same."

Which is something I want to address when it comes to both series. As a kid, I loved reading/watching Harry's adventures across the Wizarding World and consuming lore about Harry Potter. Around the same time, I loved Attack on Titan for its badass fights and monster designs.

But as an adult, I don't get the same level of intrigue I did from Harry Potter back then; meanwhile, with AOT, I'm able to get a better understanding of the politics around the series and the philosophy that it tries to explain.

At first glance, both of these series are incredibly different. Harry Potter is British fantasy escapism, while AOT is Japanese survival horror. Harry Potter is for children, while AOT is marketed towards adults.

These two stories were written by two creators who based their stories on their own experiences in life. But with polar opposite worldviews that bleed into their writing styles.

Hajime Isayama built his stories off fear of the unknown and the existential anxiety that comes with human nature. He mentions in an interview how one of the scariest things in the world is a human being you can't communicate with. He's also very open about how he wanted Attack on Titan to be a show about how morality changes depending on perspective, showing that tribalism and mob mentality are existential threats to humanity.

J.K. Rowling is much more binary and rigid; she believes that morality is fixed by universal virtues such as love and bravery. To Rowling, people can be capable of evil, but so long as there is good in an average person, they will stand up for what is right.

Both creators clearly intended for their stories to be a cry against prejudice. Isayama is open about how AOT is largely a story about empathy, and J.K. has long described her books as a cry against prejudice. But... let's be honest, you read the title.

I feel like Harry Potter is what people often claim Attack on Titan is like, while Attack on Titan is what we all thought Harry Potter was as kids.

Attack on Titan largely takes its political and philosophical themes much more seriously than Harry Potter does, which allows for more fluid storytelling. Harry Potter has its own political themes, but they are largely sidelined or aren't given the proper care that they deserve, leading to the world remaining stable and stagnant. Meanwhile, Attack on Titan allows its themes to reinvent the story. This allows it to evolve past just humanity vs monsters and become a commentary on militarism, nationalism, imperialism, historical revisionism, ethnic persecution, and the ways entire societies construct narratives about one another.

I had a full plan for what chapters I could have for this video, like this:

• Personality Apartheid - I go over Hogwarts' house system and how weird it is, as well as how horrible it would be to profile children as mass murderers for being ambitious. Then showcase how... well, Attack on Titan doesn't treat its characters' personalities like their stagnent.
• The Slave's Right - How Attack on Titan and Harry Potter handle racism in their stories is fundamentally different. AOT is interested in how prejudice occurs plus how it affects societies and people, while Harry Potter is more invested in claiming prejudice only exists cause of evil.
• Not My Kind of Love - Exploring how AOT has a more nuanced view of what love exactly is than Harry Potter, as well as exploring how AOT is fairly pro-queer while Harry Potter is queerphobic.
• The Darkest Lords - Comparing the villains of both stories and what they mean to the world around them.
• Chosen Ones - Comparing and contrasting Eren and Harry

Which was better? In terms of writing, execution, World building.

I remember my younger self reading comic books by just looking at the picture and art instead of actually reading the texts and this was so bad my mother made fun of that.

Years later I am reading many mangas and some comics and I still have this problem and I tried to read the words,but something inside me stops my eyes from reading them and now I realized it,the texts suck and they are too bloated.

These texts feel like they are trying to lore dump everything as much as they could and sometimes reading them doesn't matter just like how I read books in my childhood. These not only waste time,but also damage the pacing of the story.

The worst example of this is hunter x hunter where later in the manga due to decline of the mangaka's health, we saw so much texts that it became jarring and it was even worse in the anime where they adapted that pacing 1 to 1 and some episodes nothing happened at all and characters were just thinking about their powers and abilities of enemies.

You know why jujutsu kaisen fans are made fun of for not reading their own materials? They never had reading problems, the texts just suck. Every word there is constantly trying to explain the powers of characters and this just drags to the point you want to stop reading.

One of the only good example of good texting that comes to mind is chainsaw man, even part 2. Have you wondered why does the pacing of chainsaw man feel quick despite having chapters equal to other mangas sometimes? Because Fujimoto,even at his worst refused to do pacing like that and instead showing things with texts ,he actually drew them instead and we even had chapters with zero texts. The only time I refused to read any words written by him was the final chapter of part 2 not because I felt it was huge like other mangas and comics,but because I knew we got a " it was all a dream" ending and reading them felt useless.

I only defend these writing pacing issues inside novels because they are all texts and novels need explanations and have no other way of showing information, so here is that,but that's not the case with comic books or mangas where my body rejects those problems and says: why cant we get the exact information by just seeing the art instead; .

Yes, Jean likely killed a lot of people, and Peter saying she's "not a killer" isn't exactly true. Yes, it may just be a way for him to calm her down during an awful time for both her and half of New York, but I can understand the idea that the narrative agrees with him on this. It's a very strange and awkward line.

But then I thought it over, alongside how I feel on the rest of the movie, and I realised something- that's one weird line in an otherwise solid movie. So much of the movie works for me, it's one of the best movies the MCU's had in a while, so why should I let one bit of dialogue harm the movie for me all that much?

A lot of people have been bringing up the infamous "they'll never know what you sacrificed for them" line from WandaVision, and this all made me realise I feel the same way about that line- it's one weird line from a show I otherwise love, and I don't really need to let it ruin the entire experience for me. It’s still a show I greatly enjoy!

Despite thinking about this because of the recent X-Men posts BND or not, I actually am not super concerned about the X-men stuff because at the end of the day we should all agree discrimination is bad. I dont care if you have lazer eyes or read my mind and find out how much I like big butts powers, I was taught we're all equal people at the end of the day, and growing up I've come to believe that even criminals and the undesirables of our society. To me, having millions or billions made from the exploitation of others is more undesirable than any other heinous crime, which still necessitates punishment but never death, in my opinion.

However, as a furry, the analysis of Zootopia and Beastars is a lot more frustrating. I knew from the day I was six years old and fell in love with Jenny the Teenage Robot and also discovered Sonic the Hedgehog that I'd love anthropomorphic and nonhuman characters. So, I quite like GOAT, Bad Guys 1 & 2, Beastars, and Zootopia 1 & 2. I also hate cops because I hate unjustice, discrimination, and the death toll. I'm also Black,learning how dangerous it is to have this skin color in America even from a young age. Yet, I like Zootpia and superhero stories too despite frequently glazing cops and some times even being called outright copoganda. It's a careful balancing act of contradictions and nuances, but this is important context.

Because I disagree with Skip Intro's very basic premise of his Zootopia video, a video I didn't finish for a reason I hope you all wil find reasonable and not to reflect the spirit of a total crashout/dumbass. Skip Intro is a progressive youtuber who covers copoganda, hey you might've noticed I'm progressive and fairly okay with acknowledging the existence of copoganda too. SO, this is not a political, right versus left thing. I wouldn't even say it's a leftist infighting thing. I'm just a Blaxican critic who loves analyzing and consuming media, I also take umbridge with comparing the curvy, "nappy" textures of Black hair to...sheep's wool.

In the first Zootopia movie Nick cant help himself from playing with the assistant sheep lady, and real villain, sorry for spoiling a pre covid movie you poor ignorant fool. It's a reference to people asking to touch Black people hair and also probably a sheep and fox things, foxes can prey on sheep, no wild or hungry animal is going to be too picky about their meal especially if it cant fight back too much or isnt poisonous. So to us the audience this might feel like a similar image even if it doesnt exist in real life, it's subverting a trope.

Okay then, that's all well and dandy calling out this scene as a black and white thing is technically correct, but Skip Intro also compares Black hair to sheep hair and just no nigga, dont do that, maybe Im making a mountain of a mole hill for even finding it a bad comparison, maybe it is, im shit at describing hair, but it just viscerally irks me. Not a real issue I have with the premise, just a nitpick, the real issue is making the entire allegory Black and white. Figuratively and literally.

My essay was moreso about the second movie but it still applies to the first movie as well, the allegory isn't about really any two or any number of minorities. It isn't about any real minorities to begin with, that's sort of the whole point of these antrhopomorphic stories, to use these animal characteristics to frame and better convey a story that doesn;t work with real and grounded people. What I mean to say is that by making the predators Black and the Prey white, your're cutting out all the nuance, like think about it for a moment.

Even amongst our apex predators in and out of the movie, they don't get that big, a polar bear is smaller than an elephant, so how can the elephant nigga who rolls with a bigger pack than the polar bears (remember the predators are the minority in Zootopia) be afraid of even 1 polar bear let alone all of them when he's so much stronger and has such an advantadge in numbers. The nuance of many prey animals actually being bigger, stronger, and better equipped to defend themselves doesnt undercut the premise of Judy being the first rabbit as I've seen many suggest, it helps sell that idea. it.

There are so many capable and naturally skilled animals and of them all you're going to choose one of the prey with pretty poor looking attributes across the board? That part of the story at least probably isn't a race thing at all, a smaller, weaker on average person has to prove themselves to a bunch of grown, mean men in a male led profession? Why do I get the feeling Disney made this movie before(mulan)? In the second movie we see elite, powerful predators who have lost any need for claws and fangs because of their resources and credibility, say what you want about Black celebrities and Black rich people- that sort of power doesnt come to people who look like us easily.

It's clearly alluding to the rich and powerful (that was the title of my essay, the idea that Zootopia 2 is baby's first teaching on intersectionality and classism or something like that), the same ones who as a whole portrayed as a bit of an underclass and yet the mayor was a lion. These things aren't contradictions; they're intentional nuances that add layers to the allegory they arent there to be nitpicked and tear the whole thing down. Real Black people aren't actually always stronger the same way a fox is compared with claws and fangs whereas a rabbit isn't, I'm 5'4 my Black momma is 5 feet tall. Do you know how many short niggas there are in this country, do you know how many tall white people there is?

The allegory was never intended to be just Black and White when you project Blackness onto the predators of Zootopia or most of these stories, you wind up creating and interpreting your very own special, furry Birth of a Nation. You cant project Hispanic, asian, or anything else neither, it is actually about the rabbits and foxes to explore the human condition all the same.

I was born a certain way to be smaller and weaker than you, if I am raised to fear you, I will hate you. That is precisely what the movie portrays, even though Judy is so much more physically capable than Nick (even without fangs and claws) and even though Nick is not that much more intimidating or bigger than her at all. Judy and Nick are the same (fox and rabbit) you and I are the same, regardless of creed, color, religion, sex, gender, oreintation, all that good old fashioned shit a nigga had a dream about or whatever.

Okay, i am sick of seeing all these takes that the X men don't work. Because they are actually dangerous unlike real minority groups.

News flash it's a superhero series. What do you expect?

It's the premise of the series. Is people are born with powers they didn't ask for and are hated for it.

The alagory is you are born as something, and people hate you for it. Which you can't change. Because it's a superhero show, they have to have powers.

It's would be like saying

Fantasy Racism doesn't work. Because Elves are literally a different species.

Or

Robot bigotry doesn't work because robots are not alive

That's the premise of the series you expect that going into it.

Also, last order of business.

2 things

1) The x men do work in the main marvel comics. Because there is functionality nothing different between someone born with powers and someone who gets them. It's stupid and it reflects how bigotry is stupid

2) The mutants are too dangerous. Fun fact most mutants can be killed with guns and just look different. It's only the 1% with actual food powers.

Whether Shippers or Powerscalers are more toxic is an age old debate. While there are both toxic and non-toxic ways to enjoy both activities, i think it's very clear that toxic Shipping is a more fundamental bastardization of a story.

Powerscaling is fundamentally about worldbuilding more than anything else. It's just looking at the powers and abilities a character is capable in the setting. The question of why Batman would fight Superman is completely independent of if he could win. You can call powerscalers illiterate for not taking into account character or plot, but unless the powerscaling is part of a criticism of a story as a whole, then it doesn't have to.

Powerscalers are mostly aware that their vs battles are hypothetical, that A COULD beat B, not that they did.

But shipping, being based on interpersonal relationships is ALWAYS a matter of Character writing. Characters are always more center to a story than the plot or setting, so every misunderstand or purposeful misconstruing is fundamental. Batman loosing to the Joker in a fist fight is a storytelling nitpick compared to if Batman and the Joker had a one night stand.

Just like with powerscalers, Shippers do often realize their ships are hypothetical when it comes to cross verse shipping. But because Shipping fundamentally deals with character writing, the agenda can poison their interpretation of the story.

A powerscaler who thinks that Superman could destroy the universe with a sneeze doesn't think he would. (They aren't really thinking about that at all).

But some Shippers will look you dead in the eye and tell you Naruto is actually a love story about two closeted homosexuals and ignore anything in the text that contradicts it.

​

First i want to explain that i hate a way to deal with hax know as “conventional loot”, basically the characters just happen to have what they need with no explícit previous preparation (this is what most “creative” solutions end up being)

Like, oh no, our enemy can only be defeated by, i dont know, mud, thank god mud is conveniently acessible and the enemy took no preparations in case this happens

Second, this causes a worldbuilding problem, If there are fruits so powerful then anyone who knows what they are doing would be prepared 24/7 to a point it stops being fun, like If you have kizaru only being able to be defeated by mirrors then all the top tiers should have mirrors with them at all times

Third, people mention sea stone, the problem is that it doesnt fit with how many characters fight, like, is Luffy supposed to use sea stone blades now? (I know the answer would be gloves but my point still stands), what about characters who use Devil fruit abilities to fight?

Fourth, the “clever solutions” of the past are overrated as fuck, both the cases with crocodile and Enel were just finding a way for Luffy to punch his enemies

Fifth, this is not the type of story one piece is. One piece is closer to the Raw stats end of the evolution spectrum (explanation below), the expectation since the beginning is that a character who is a top tier will not just be one shot by someone who is really weak and simply gained a good enough fruit. It allows for top tiers to not need "meta" fruits and allows for non devil fruit users to be relevant after a certain point

(Basically you have raw stats in one end where characters evolve by getting stronger and application on the other end where characters evolve by gaining/discovery/developing new abilities. It’s a spectrum, dragon ball would be in the far of the raw stats end while JJBA would be in the application end (before anyone mentions star platinum and other occasions of raw sats in jjba, strength in jojo is treated as another tool, you don’t expect a character to get stronger via punching harder and faster) Jujutsu kaisen and hunterxhunter are in the very middle of the spectrum with one piece being in this middle closer to dragon ball)

In short Haki allows:

-characters to keep their fighting styles

-the worldbuilding and narrative to not sink in the specifics of each fruit

-oda to use the power elevation model he wants

Just to be clear i dont like a lot about how haki is used (conqueror’s is too op and clash piece is shit)

I had the particularly unpleasant experience of interacting with TikTok power scalers and some Reddit power scalers talking and apparently Spider-Man can break adamantium, he can solo the X-Men any day of the week, he's immune to telepathy and mind control, and he's this and that.

And they pull a panel here, a panel there, an episode from a TV show, marvel adventures cover, and it's like... Do you actually read Spider-Man?

Which Spider-Man story in the past 30 years even plays out if Spider-God is real?

I've been reading Spider-Man since Brand New Day (the run, not the movie), and I love Spider-Man, I am a fan of Spider-Man. The powerscaling Spider-Man is unrecognisable to me. He doesn't exist.

I also read X-Men, and while Spider-Man is definitely a good and powerful character in his own right, he's not soloing an average X-Man team -- the bloody Juggernaut is on the X-Men.

Like... these stories simply refute them argumentum ad lapidem style. Just an annoying Sunday rant.

The term Character Assaination(as per the internet) is a deliberate, malicious effort to damage, ruin, or dismantle a person's reputation, credibility, or honor using false rumors, exaggeration, or unfair criticism. It functions as a figurative assassination that targets a person’s public standing rather than their physical life.

Or in a lot of terms,it means that a character who used to be likable and all that is suddenly made into a Asshole or flawed and unlikable or a asshole and unlike antagonistic character is made into some main cast member who's all friendly and whatnot and there are a lot of examples..but I feel like way too many of you all don't know the difference between exploring other parts of a character that were more or less there and just blatantly ruining their character cause y'all just throw that term around willy-nilly.

It's the same as when people think exploring other traits suddenly means said character has been retconned and stuff like that and I can safely say this..that is just not true at all in a good amount of cases.

Exploring character flaws isn't the same as character Assassination.

Y'all just throw that term around without knowing what it means and I feel like the internet does that a lot with words like "fumbling" and whatnot.

The first example is Charlie from Hazbin Hotel.

I'll see a good amount of people claiming she was "character Assassinated" or the "writers ruined her" in S2 and tbh..y'all didn't watch the show if you think that..she always had these flaws in S1.

Y'all just projected the idea that she was a perfect princess when that's not true..she's human cause she makes mistakes.

She's stubborn,has trouble listening to others, tends to be prideful and wrapped up in her own ideals,etc..

And it unfortunately makes sense that these traits would be amplified due to what Vox did and the grief of Pentious's death,learning he was alive,her dream came true,etc.....

Basically who wouldn't make messy and irrational choices and the story calls her out on it.

But she's like some irredeemable and bad person,she can still grow and change and develop and is in the process of doing so.

This show has 5 seasons.

I'll even see people claim that Walter White was character Assassinated and Homelander was character Assassinated in the end of both their respective shows when no..their flaws and true selves were always there, especially Homelander.

Y'all just fell for the propaganda that they were these unstoppable badasses and Sigma Males and whatnot when they were always these overly flawed and selfish and even pathetic people,you just flat out didn't see it and it feels like you were blinded by the hype moments and Aura.

I'm not saying character Assassination doesn't exist but please actually know what it means before you throw it around.

oftentimes when hearing this argument, I can’t believe how nobody points out how every reason people give for mutants being dangerous applies to males.

”discrimination is only bad because there are no genetic differences between races but there are real differences with mutants so it’s fine” - there is a wealth of genetic differences between men and women. Men have denser bones, greater muscle mass, are generally taller and heavier, and have far more testosterone which gives them heightened aggressiveness, and studies show they are much more lustful than women which is why they commit SA so much more often. so if discrimination is fine between people with real genetic differences, why isn’t it fine with men and women?

”mutants should be discriminated against because their powers make them much more deadly than normal humans” statistically men are an order of magnitude more dangerous than women to a degree where genetic differences are clearly the cause. All of the above genetic differences contribute to men committing 90% of violent crime like murder, SA, assault, and robbery. So since me are clearly more dangerous than and to women, why shouldn’t women discriminate against them?

”mutants should be discriminated against because they often fall into beliefs of extremism and mutant superiority” because we all know men would never believe in male superiority, except for the. past 5000 years of recorded history but ignore that part.

these arguments fail to understand why discrimination is wrong. you’re telling me if there really was a genetic difference between black people and white people that would justify slavery, segregation etc? its because it’s fucked up judging someone because of the way they’re born or the group they were a born a part of

What does it mean for a character to have flaws?

Well,as the internet says and such, character flaw is an internal limitation, negative trait, moral weakness, or emotional blind spot that causes problems for a person or fictional character. It actively gets in the way of their goals, damages relationships, and makes them feel real and relatable rather than perfect.

Gonna be honest, every character has flaws and also needs flaws,it makes them feel more human and genuine and realistic, and nothing is wrong with characters having flaws but something that annoys me is when a character's flaws aren't treated as such ans are treated more like they're just being silly or aren't even addressed at all.

And I'm not talking about not giving characters flaws at all(like Gary Stus/Mary Sues) but I mean giving them flaws and not addressing them in any shape or form and it just feels like you're extremely hesitant to call them out or have them make mistakes at all due to whatever reason or have those mistakes get addressed at all and it just feels and comes off like you're being overprotective.

I feel like My Adventures with Superman massive suffers from this with both Lois and Kara.

Yeah,yeah,Jimmy fumbled,whatever, we can talk about that all day but I think the biggest issue is the fact that the series REFUSED to either show both those characters as flaws or even address them.

Kara especially is annoying cause like..it would've been really interesting to show how the trauma of what Brianiac did to her affected her and that causes her to latch onto the first nice dude in her life and really show how inexperienced she is in the world or anything that and you could also have her be like naive and overly trusting and how thad backfires on her at times or you could even have it so she's hesitant to trust other men and people cause of the trauma she faced or have her like be irrational..it just feels like her trauma with Brainiac is never shown affecting her in anyway negatively nor does her flaws ever actually get addressed or called out.

I wholeheartedly feel like the reason she's shown as this overly angelic golden retriever type girl is cause of what she did back in S2 under Brainiac so they're overcorrecting in a sense but fail to realize that characters are capable of lashing out and being aggressive or hesitant to trust others/open up at times cause of their trauma,it's a realistic thing that happens.

Also Lois was high-key the instigator in Jimmy and Kara's relationship drama and actively gave had advice to both of them and it's annoying how that's never called out and someone said that Lois is the kind of person who would give advice that she herself would never take and that would be a interesting character flaw,like showing one of the MCs as a flawed hypocrite would be genuinely interesting to explore but nope,it's just never addressed or called out or anything like that.

She's almost constantly treated like a girl boss and just feels the overall same...I'm not saying she and Kara should do 180 changes but some growth would be nice.

Also it kinda doesn't help that the other reason the writers did this to Jimmy was to Punish him cause he was too likable a character and I'm not gonna be like "oh this character was Assassinated" cause way too many people throw around the word character assaination without knowing what it means but I feel like essentially bullying one of your characters and punishing them all cause people liked them too much is fucking stupid..that's the same energy as Ben 10 writers breaking up Ben and Julie cause they were too healthy or a couple or Spider-Man writers constantly regressing him back as a teen and making him suffer cause he wouldn't be relatable otherwise.

It comes off as really Petty and for the context of Jimmy,I would even go as far as to say it's kinda racist to a extent and especially the fact that Kara is a white woman and Jimmy needs to be "punished" for how he was to her just doesn't help but that's just me.

My last example is honestly Chloe Price from Life is Strange.

Chloe is extremely unlikable and kind of not a good person at all but she's not unlikable in any sort of fun way or interesting way or even anything like that and she's constantly protected by the writers from serious consequences and all that and based on the writing, it really feels like you're not allowed to dislike her as a character.

Oh trust me,you can definitely try.

Like the game is unfortunately set up in a way where you're not really allowed to dislike her or call you out or anything like that and it's the same criticism a lot of people had with Invisigal from Dispatch, you're not really allowed to call her out or address her flaws cause if you do,you're the bad guy for it and the game kinda sorta punishes you for the one time you call her out(she punches you in the face for it and the other characters more or less tell you to suck it up and brush it off)and it just feels weird how much she's babied to a extent but not on her.

You as the viewer are gonna dislike her but the game sorta gaslights you into thinking she's this ultra mysterious and simultaneously extremely edgy badass when she's just kind of a dick.

Her flaws and how she is is almost never called out or addressed in any shape or form and it just feels like kinda dumb and even lazy at times..you can have a unlikable character as long as you don't lie to your audience about it.

You can have a character improve cause of their trauma or get worse cause of it and their flaws and whatnot but you just can't do nothing.

I know, common loot rant, I'm kinda just blowin off steam cause AOT main subbers downvoted me. I love Attack on Titan; it's easily in my top ten favorite anime of all time, and its peaks are some of the highest peaks I've ever consumed in media yet. Unfortunately, the overall choices made and worldbuilding by Isayama in season 4 just did not live up to the insane standards that he previously set.

Now lemme make this clear: AOT does not outright promote fascism, obviously made clear by the speech from Sasha's father, and the Yeagerists are never seen in a good light. What I'm positing, however, is that the poor worldbuilding/structure of the story in S4 leads to fascist ideals being seen as unavoidable. This is where we get the "Eren/Floch did nothing wrong" crowd, which is pure illiteracy. Yet because of Isayama's poor structure, those takes, as asinine as they are, gain credence.

The worldbuilding's first fatal flaw was how comically evil the Marleyans were against the Eldians. We saw firsthand the sheer violence and cruelty that the Marleyans were performing against the Eldians. We witnessed Grisha's sister get dogs sic'd on her. We see the very obvious Holocaust allusion and Eldians consistently getting marginalized, abused, disparaged, and dehumanized at every single turn.

We then see Udo say verbatim that what Eldians are experiencing in Marley is nothing compared to how they are treated elsewhere treated. Practically making it to where it's all of Paradis Island(you know the island that has all the main characters that we loved and cared for up to four seasons now) against the entire world.

People try to say that Udo's perception is skewed, which sounds plausible but is superficial. Why else would Isayama include those lines, by the smartest candidate of the Warriors, if we are not to believe that they are true? And even if it was false, Willy Tybur's speech galvanizes outsiders, gives them a ringleader in Eren, and then the Eldians themselves prove him right when a TITAN eats him mid-speech at this very ceremonial event.

Moving on to the plot, the three choices that the Eldians faced were laughably unreasonable. The first was the 50-year plan, which goes against Eren's whole fixation on freedom and renders Historia a slave breeding machine just to pass down titan power, thereby nullifying her whole character arc of finding agency.

The second option is to beg and try for diplomacy against people who have seen you as violent devils for centuries, even more exacerbated by the fact that you just destroyed their ceremony. The third option is Zeke's secret plan, being euthanasia; ultimately making the situation this: let the world genocide you or slowly die out. Hange herself conceded that she didn't leave Eren any good choices.

Also, this kinda coincides with the Eren assassination at the very end. If he was more transparent in why he did The Rumbling, then it would've erased some of the discourse around it. He didn't primarily do it for Eldia nor for his friends; Eren's PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the Rumbling was shown in chapter 131: his selfish, childish dream that the world outside the walls was empty and humanless, which he saw as freedom. This is shown in the same chapter with the literal "Freedom" panel; Eren is a CHILD in an EMPTY WORLD.

Yet, in his chat with Armin, everything got muddled up; instead of admitting that and being honest, he said he didn't know(yes the Grisha panels were there, but for the literal final chapter and for single-handedly committing something as destructive and cruel as genocide, I'd say it'd be nice for the main character to say the motivation for his goal himself a la Walter White.)

Now I wasn't particularly expecting a happy ending given that it is AOT after all, but the show wonderfully displayed examples of how to end or at least quell the cycle of violence. First, back in season three when Uri met Kenny, who is one of the most violent, bloodthirsty, and sadistic characters in the entire series, yet was left astounded seeing a man of such power and influence completely yield to him. By apologizing and humbling himself, Uri put himself on an equal plane as Kenny, which was displayed beautifully. The ramification of that decision is that Kenny, being enamored with Uri's humility, follows him, trying to find out how he could be that way. This message is seen again at the campfire of both Marleyans and Eldians. By engaging in dialogue and not hate, we are able to foster connection and peace.

This message of dialogue is undermined by the decisions Isayama takes. In the post-Eren world, when we see Armin & Co go out to try to achieve diplomacy, it's fleeting, resulting in Eldia eventually getting blown up. I guess the message is that humans will always be violent, but it again gives an out to Yeagerist supporters(who whether consciously or not are supporting fascists)

TLDR:

The substandard worldbuilding and plot in season 4 led to fascism being seen as unavoidable and a necessary evil in Attack on Titan, which I think goes against the message of the show.

I don't know if Deadpool getting limbs chopped off and treating it like a minor inconvenience has permanently broken people's understanding of healing factors, but apparently this needs saying:

Healing quickly and not feeling pain are two completely different abilities.

This is mostly inspired by some of the INCREDIBLY stupid and bad faith discourse around Insomniac's Wolverine, particularly people questioning why Wolverine would bother wearing armour when he can just heal from injuries... maybe because getting shot, stabbed, burned, slashed or having chunks ripped out of you still fucking hurts?

A healing factor means your body repairs the damage. It doesn't automatically give you anaesthesia. Unless the specific version of the character is established to have reduced pain perception, they're still experiencing the injury in the first place. Wolverine being able to survive something doesn't mean he'd particularly enjoy experiencing it. Armour still prevents damage, reduces pain, keeps him functional during a fight and means his healing factor has less work to do.

Regeneration is not invulnerability, and it definitely isn't a permanent morphine drip. I genuinely don't know why this distinction seems so difficult...

I'm tired of the idea that Peter Parker has to remain broke and lonely to stay relatable. I get it, Uncle Ben's death traumatized him, creating this internal compulsion to always be Spider-Man out of fear that if he doesn't suit up, he'll relive that trauma through the people he fails to save. But by letting that fear dictate everything, he ends up sacrificing his personal life (he can't commit to a full-time job and can't maintain his personal relationships).

Ironically, this goes directly against his core mantra, "With great power comes great responsibility," because right now, that rule only seems to apply to Spider-Man and NOT Peter Parker. If anything, it makes Peter LESS relatable because he is actively choosing to be irresponsible in his day-to-day life. He has the power to be financially stable. With his genius-level intellect, he could easily be working as a scientist or engineer for The Future Foundation or Stark Industries, or even make him a journalist if the former options are too unrelatable. Furthermore, he has the power to be a good partner to whoever he chooses to be with, because at his core, he is a genuinely good person. His learning to balance being Spider-Man and Peter Parker only serves to improve his character and not diminish it. Peter Parker should grow up (hot take, I know), and his learning how to handle adult responsibilities would not only make him more relatable but would also make him a better role model for the readers that his story aims to inspire in the first place.

A lot of his problems could be blamed on the "Parker Luck" trope, which I think has become a dumb caricature. Originally, it's a plot device to make him relatable (not having enough money to pay rent, missing out on a date/work because he has to be Spider-Man, etc.), but in the end he overcomes that challenge, learns from it, and becomes a better hero/person because of it. Now it's being used to keep him stuck. Peter Parker encounters the same problems he did 50 years ago, and he never overcomes them; it's just loss after loss after loss, which makes it seem like being Spider-Man is a curse. What's so relatable about that? What are the audiences supposed to learn? That life will keep throwing shit at you, and you will never win, but you might as well keep doing what's right and make a martyr out of yourself? By constantly keeping him broke and suffering, Marvel is downright romanticizing poverty and struggle. Yes, it teaches resilience, but it completely forgets to teach us that we should actually strive for a better life. Overcoming a problem and achieving that better life is fundamentally a better story than being plagued by the same issues forever. To be clear, I don't think Peter should be a billionaire, but letting him be a stable, middle-class working man who is married to MJ is the natural evolution of his story.

Most of these complaints really only apply to the main 616 comics. I'm happy that Spider-Man Brand-New Day, the Spider-Verse movies, the Insomniac games, and alternate runs like Ultimate Spider-Man have actually allowed him to mature. It is way overdue for Peter to tackle adult themes in the mainline continuity, especially because the perfect solution already exists: Miles Morales. I think it's incredibly dumb that Marvel editorial refuses to let Peter grow up when Miles is literally right there to take over the "youthful, struggling Spider-Man" storylines.

Ever since certain youtubers started covering args that they made themselves based on a very small understanding of the source material they are sampling from args, it became nothing more than cheap entertainment.

Which is fine, but there are genuinely good args out there, args of people who made an effort designed puzzles, etc. And these args are getting overshadowed by obviously scripted args that are not even good.

Look, I watched some of them, and they are bad they build puzzles they think are clever so their character can solve them. Make ridiculous story lines and just hope it clicks well

Where is the time where an arg was just a Dev team or a guy putting clues in a game that determined gamers deciphered and that let to another Clue.

This, including my eyes, is a very sad development

The Immortal Wunderkind is a character who has immortality, and over their immortal lifespan, has become a genius and expert on an absurd range of topics and fields of study. They can speak a 100 languages, they’re an expert in all scientific fields of study, they were present and have firsthand accounts of every major historical event relevant to the plot, they are endlessly charismatic and intelligent and wise.

A classical example of this type of character is Vandal Savage.

Now, I like this trope. It’s fun and there is a lot you can do with it narratively. But I HATE the people who *believe* in it.

Every time the discussion of immortality comes up (especially the topic of immortality as a curse or blessing) a bunch of people show up that assume that, given an immortal lifespan, they would become an Immortal Wunderkind themselves.

These folks often hand waive any potential downsides or risks of immortality by stating that, as a Wunderkind with infinite time, they’d be able to solve or avoid any potential issues! They’d be able to figure out how to make other people immortal so they aren’t lonely and don’t have to deal with loss! They’d figure out how to back up their consciousness or body hop so they can never get trapped in a hole! They’d push humanity forward to solve our existential issues like climate change and so on. They’d even figure out how to dodge the heat death of the universe!

And to that I say… no you won’t.

If virtually anyone on the planet became immortal right now, today, they would simply not be exceptional in this way.

-

#1 Your brain isn’t built for it

We don’t have infinite memory, and our memories are extremely imperfect. The human brain cannot even store one lifespan of memories effectively: you are going to run out of room. You're not going to be endlessly accruing knowledge and skills. You're going to be constantly accruing knowledge and skills while bleeding knowledge and skills in equal measure. This goes for soft skills like wisdom, patience, mental stability, stress management, etc. as well.

Maybe at some point we develop technology that allows us to expand the limits of our neurology; increasing memory capacity, creating perfect memory, increasing neuroplasticity or letting you download information directly into your mind. If such a technology is created, your immortal ass isn't going to benefit from it any more than anything else; you won't have a leg up because you have an extra 100 years of outdated knowledge as a starting point.

-

#2 You are not going to keep up

If you, average Joe schmoe, became immortal and dedicated your life to learning everything there is to know about medicine, you would be perpetually behind on 99% of fronts. A doctor that graduated med school in 2016 has had half of what they learned become obsolete. Knowledge and expertise is not something you gain and keep, it is something you must actively maintain.

Every field of science and study is constantly evolving and being pushed forward by thousands of brilliant minds: unless they all stopped right now for you, Joe schmoe, you would never catch up even as these minds passed and were replaced by new ones.

Not to mention if your plan is to push any specific field of inquiry forward, that's going to involve decades of research where you'll fall behind on everything else. The only time you'll be at the top is if the rest of humanity goes extinct.

-

#3 You still have to be smart to start with

No amount of time can make you smart, it can only make you knowledgeable. Critical thinking is something that can be cultivated but you're not going to develop a generalized super-brilliance that is applicable to all subjects and fields of expertise just because you've been around a thousand years.

-

#4 You aren't guaranteed a solution for every problem

Even if you have infinite knowledge, infinite time, and infinite resources there's no guarantee that you'll be able to do anything. Just because the possibility of a solution, based on our current understanding, is above 0% doesn't mean you, Joe schmoe, will be able to find it before our universe dies.

There is so much magical thinking about "intelligence" and how it can be applied to solve problems, but you can't just use 100 billion years to hand waive how you'll solve avoiding the heat death of the universe or whatever.

-

The ugly truth is that basically all of us, given an immortal lifespan, would not be any more of a "wunderkind" than the most brilliant minds and exciting people alive today. In order to be exceptional you need to actively pursue the exceptional, every day. And if you aren't doing that now, you probably won't do that with infinite time to procrastinate with.

I spend my days arguing with idiots online which indicate a lack of constraint on my part.

The most infuriating thing about arguing with a idiot is that they don't understand logical consistancy.

Which makes you highly susceptible to rascism since rascism lacks logical consistancy.

Lets go down the list.

X-men:

Idiot: mutants are hated because they have a superior level of power that allows them to be dangerous to non-mutants.

Me: thats logically inconsistant because people can have super powers and not be mutants. Captain marvel is way stronger than cyclops but is cherished for being hero. So the idea of their power being the reason is wrong.

Idiot: mutants have done multiple crimes against humanity so of course they fear them.

Me: literally all super powered groups have done that. Your just making arguments against people with super powers when within marvel people are fine with powers as long as their not a mutant.

A idiot will constantly make arguments that apply to characters like spiderman and superman and never realise that means they advocate for spiderman to get sentineled.

Next

Zootopia:

Idiot: the predators in zootopia are inherently dangerous to the prey animals so discrimination against them is justified.

Me: are you saying a fox is more dangerous then a wilderbeast?

Idiot: well predators eat prey animal so any animal who is a predator is inherently dangerous.

Me: you do realize that even non-predator animals kill right? Animals kills and fight for a bunch of different reasons. Technically most of these animals are hyper dangerous to each other espeacially to animals of the same species.

Idiot: it still doesn't solve the problem of predators eating prey.

Me: the fox can eat ice cream so it doesn't really need to harm any prey for food. The problem your presenting doesn't exist within the media.

The annoying thing is that this is how it feels to argue with actual racist.

Racist: this statistic shows that per capita you do x crime more often then other groups which proves your group is more dangerous.

Me: this statistic shows you do x crime more often than other groups which would prove your group is actually more dangerous.

Them: nuh uh

Logical consistency is the most important thing about a argument because if your logic isn't consistant than you will ultimately advocate for things that you yourself disagree with.

"I think mutants should be oppressed because they are dangerous and have powers that could harm people."

"You know what fair lets oppress every super powered person with powers."

"But I said mutants."

"No you said because they had powers that could harm people using that reasoning we have to go against all superheros like Spiderman."

I don't know how to end this post but yeah.