#it’s not that I’m disagreeing on their mischaracterizations being bad respectively

[soullessjack]

maybe I’m being mean but at this point whenever I see sam dean cas girls post about their guys’ mischaracterizations all I can think is “you’ll live” and Oprah shrug gif because I have had to endure six years worth of seeing my guy exist as a baby shaped stage prop for the others or a teenage shaped baby who listens to fucking conehead gray and hides under blankets when he hears thunder. like not to make it a competition but I really truly believe I objectively have it the worst here im sorry

[aboveallarescuer]

No question, I just wanted to let you know that you & your metas/posts are so so SOO appreciate 🎉😊 you are such a blessing to the Dany fandom.🍾

Your metas are always so thoughtful & insightful, and the frequency with which you publish them, is astonishing & almost a tad scary. 😅

Anyway bless you 🤗💕

And not to mention how you always manages to remain polite, level-headed and respectful in discussions, whenever addressing a real person or talking about a character, yet unwavering & straight to the point. Very admirable 👏🏻 [ I envy you for that😬]

Thank you for sending these messages <333 I have a few mutuals who write much faster than I do, but I appreciate the compliment anyway lol. Especially the second one, because yesterday I was kind of sad thinking about how I probably helped to split the Dany fandom for being so vocal, particularly after that big fight last year...

I don't want to make it seem that the people I disagree with (the "neutrals", as I call them) never make interesting points or are "bad" people (I don't know them in real life and I don't think fandom is activism at all) or necessarily resent/hate Dany because none of these things would be true... So follow whoever you want and never feel like you're "betraying" your group because you don't owe anything to anyone here.

At the same time, though, I do get frustrated when I see that a lot of the "neutrals" mischaracterize Dany as arrogant and/or ruthless and/or hot-headed and/or obsessed with prophecies and/or susceptible to flattery and/or someone who doesn't think ahead and/or anything that actually defines Cersei and/or Stannis (both of whom are foils to Dany). I do get frustrated when I see them acting as if fighting for the Iron Throne is worse than fighting to retake Winterfell. That book!Dany is actually humble, modest, self-reflective, hard on herself, not susceptible to flattery and unwilling to use violence are all things that, to me, should be accepted as obvious facts just as much as Catelyn being driven by her loyalty to her family, Tyrion and Sam being intellectually driven, Davos and Brienne being good people, etc. And when I questioned them about these things, I was accused of dogmatism and intolerance at best and harassment, bullying, doxxing and stalking at worst. That crossed a line for me. And it makes no sense because they say that they're book only fans, but they're clearly still being influenced by the show's portrayal of Dany. I don't know about you, but I change my opinions when I'm presented with information I may have overlooked. That is why I always tend to bring up textual evidence (which most of them don't care to do). But what it seems to me is that the "neutrals" willfully ignore the evidence that Dany stans (and Arya stans too, because we've had similar issues over the years) provide instead of adjusting their views accordingly. Their attitude seems a lot more like mob mentality to me than what I do, imo. And considering how a lot of the people who made/agreed with the false accusations about me were also involved in this disgusting attack against the RL shippers, I can't help but look askance at them and their requests that people accept their takes (which are already the commonly accepted ones) and be nice to each other (because that seems more like telling us to keep quiet because they don't want to feel uncomfortable by having their views challenged, especially since they themselves often start fandom wank and are pretty nasty). So I avoid engaging with their content nowadays because of all these factors and I express my anger sometimes. But I also want to make it clear that it's a personal choice and anyone can follow whoever they want. I don't think it makes you "less" of a Dany fan (though that doesn't prevent you from judging her based on higher standards either because feelings don't always align with logical arguments).

Sorry for using these asks to get some things off my chest, I was feeling kind of guilty after I saw a post about how someone's appreciation for ASOIAF was ruined by their fandom experience (which is supposed to be fun). I hope people can see where I'm coming from. If what I say makes you dislike me, it's totally fine. But I won't stop defending Dany and presenting textual evidence when/if I have the time and energy to accurately characterize her because the double standards against her in this fandom are endless, go way beyond Jonsa hate and the claims that she's being set up to become a villain/Mad Queen and become really evident when you have a comprehensive knowledge of book!Dany's characterization and judge her actions based on the moral standards of her society.

[buzzykrueger]

People seem to have a positive view of Killua leaving Gon for Alluka as if he’s some toxic thing to be abandoned. I mean, for Gon this must feel like affirmation that he’s not worth anyone tying themselves to him. Killua only ended up contributing to Gon feeling like a weak, unhealthy, weak, being unworthy of being around. I hate that they ended on that note. Any positive takes on their parting are only there because they separated in the first place. Gon got the short end of the stick regardless. Killua used him as a replacement for Alluka unknowingly and then fully replaced him once he remembered Alluka. Sorry for ppl hoping for any reconciliation between these two.

Oh anon, they didn’t end on that note, actually :/ they’ve ended feeling sad and unsatisfied but so far away from literally being negative towards each other that I really can’t see your opinion as anything but your feelings, which is totally valid

BUT

having your own conclusions and feelings, which is fine, and affirming that those were written for the story (killua using gon? separating being bad when it actually wasn’t? alluka replacing) when they were not are completely different things. 

Gon might be feeling unworthy, yes, but not because Killua did that to him (Killua and Gon fully devoted to each other’s sake, this is undeniable) - he’s the one who feels responsible and needs to face the consequences. Killua might be shutting down his own feelings, yes, but not for replacement or hurting matters, quite the opposite actually and the story made that CLEAR. The fact that, in front of each other, they were smiling, giving affectionate words, almost surrendering to this very-true-affection and almost being unable to leave, indicates that they’re not blaming the other part, but themselves. It’s also likely that they hold unsatisfied expressions while facing their newfound goals as an indicative that both of them haven’t found happiness in this outcome, but had to do it.

And again, I’m not sayin’ they did it the right way - the separation could’ve been much more honest and light-hearted, you know, with more reassurance and affection? It hurts me that Killua bottled up so much out of fear and “acceptance” that he got “rejected” - but I don’t think they were straight hurting each other. They were visibly hating to split up, and due to some inner circumstances that we, as the audience, disagree (because we have information that they haven’t so for us it’s easy to point fingers), but that are understandable in terms of characters, they chose this outcome that could’ve been better. I agree with that. This doesn’t mean that it was a fully messed up separation, though.

And while both of them messed up, Killua shouldn’t be responsible for Gon’s reflection, he was always the one who analyzed things through while Gon just went ahead. And fair enough that Gon shouldn’t be responsible for Killua’s self-honesty and path to finding his own worth. That’s why they needed to split. Separating isn’t wrong if it’s to grow independent in order to love yourself and others properly.

I think this isn’t the first ask you’ve sent because of the way you write, but it isn’t wrong to believe or to disbelieve a reunion/reconciliation (?). They reuniting or not are both possible outcomes. There’s no way to be 100% sure of one of them. With all due respect, you’re grieving over details that might be your own feelings. I don’t think you owe anyone your sympathy, and we’re not in need of any as well lol. Everything is likely to happen. There’s no “acceptance” over a still ongoing story.

All of the things I’ve already answered in previous asks are ripped off from the scenes, I’m not making them up, y’know? I’ll won’t try to convince you if it’s not about the plot.  Because our feelings, while being different, are both valid - and they are what they are: feelings. Not writing, not plot evidences, not Togashi’s feelings or characters feelings. But still valid and not arguable.

I also got SO sad, anon, when they separated. It truly broke my heart, and made me seek comfort in other people in the fandom. That’s okay, really! We have to feel things, but in a healthy way, and the same goes to expressing it okay? Please drop by again, and we’re here to help each other. And remember: the separation scene isn’t a fight, there’s no Gon vs. Killua when it comes to guilt, anywhere.

Edit: and if I sounded rude, sorry because it really wasn’t my intention. Let’s just open ourselves to feelings, to possibilities and to facts, separate them properly for our own sake. Otherwise we might get angry, depressed or defensive about things that are up to many interpretations. Frustrations are understandable, I had mine too. I HATE when people demonize Gon, and I hate when people cross the line between acknowledging Killua’s mistakes and demonizing him too - we don’t need to condemn and mischaracterize a character to protect another or to show we understand them, because they’re not mad at each other, so why should we be?

[jeynewesterling]

What happened that you hate GoT? Only one season left to the finish.

The very first thing you should know about me is - I’m a book snob. So much so that my family absolutely will not watch the Harry Potter movies with me and and I absolutely will not watch the last three Harry Potter movies period. 

As my book snobbery relates to Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire, after some convincing from a friend, I knew I wanted to watch the show. However, because I knew that it was based on a book series, I had to read the books before I could allow myself to get into it. I binge-read all five books, all 4,500+ pages, in about two weeks to prepare myself to watch it. 

Game of Thrones has always had trouble staying true to the source material. Since the very, very beginning. Since Lena Headey asked Dan and David to humanize Cersei, and instead of explaining that, no this is the character as she comes across in canon, they wrote her the black-haired, trueborn, Baratheon son story that she shares with Catelyn. Since the sexposition, introducing Tyrion in a brothel instead of a library, emphasizing his sexuality over his intellect. Since they completely flipped Ned and Catelyn’s stances on if and why Ned should acccepted the Hand of the King appointment. 

For the first few seasons, yeah, it had some deviations and mischaracterizations, but the soul of the show felt more or less in line with A Song of Ice and Fire, at least from my perspective. But every season got a little bit worse than the one before, every season strayed further and further from something recognizeably A Song of Ice and Fire. 

Until we hit season five and they just threw the source material to the wind and decided to write their own story. I know some people are going to defend Dan Weiss and David Benioff, some people will argue that George’s hand is still in the show, and that’s fine. This is just my opinion, based on the show as I understand it, my interpretation of the books, how I read into certain interviews I’ve seen, etc. You are absolutely welcome to disagree with me. But by season five, they didn’t run out of source material, but they ran out of source material they were interested in and I think they were very glad to have that excuse of being ‘off book’. Yet, without the guidance of the books, their storylines were… bad. So bad. Dan and David claim to have planned Sansa going North and marrying Ramsay Snow since season two, yet with years of forethought, they still could not create a storyline that supported that with any sort of internal logic. I stopped watching the show after Sansa’s wedding to Ramsay, and only finished the season because my friend convinced me to see just what other awful, book canon defying nonsense it did next. But I did not watch season six as it aired, I was committed to being done with the show as it wasn’t even ‘love to hate it’ anymore. It was just frustrating to me, to see how little respect these writers had for A Song of Ice and Fire, because I loved the books so much and, in my naive opinion, if you’re adapting something from one form of media to another, it should be because you love it passionately, not because it’ll make you rich. I don’t feel like Dan and David love A Song of Ice and Fire passionately. And that’s not without cause: 

[T]he writers themselves, David [Benioff] and Dan [Weiss], they didn’t particularly want actors coming to the scripts from the book, always suggesting what the book did and how it was different – I could see the glazed look in their eyes when that happened…They were quite happy for us to move forward and treat them as screenplays with no history, so that’s the reason why I only ever read the first novel. - Iain Glen

Not only did they discourage actors from reading the source material, they took advantage of the actors’ lack of knowledge of the books to convince them to do things that made them uncomfortable, under the guise of “It’s a plot point in the books.”

(Natalie Dormer)

That’s at least how I interpret that quote from her, that Dan and David told her that this sex scene with a co-star almost half her age could not be changed or written out because it was a plot point in the books, when in fact the marriage was the plot point, and significant to that plot, the fact that Margaery and Tommen have not consummated their marriage. 

The only reason I did end up going back and watching seasons six and seven was because I made friends in the fandom and I wanted to be able to keep up with context of their conversations. The problems are still there, the mischaracterizations are still there, it’s still a frustrating show for me to watch.

And to answer the real question you’re asking - why I made this post - the answer is; I am very tired of seeing speculation on the outcome of the show. I think there are some valid and interesting points being made, but really, at the end of the day, I do not care about the show and the show versions of these characters enough to engage or enjoy it. And I have no patience for using the show to predict what is coming in the next books, because they are entirely separate entities. I have seen many people say that since George R.R. Martin has given Dan and David the important plot points to hit, that there are some things we can take for certain to come about in the books. I understand that, but I also disagree.

If in my story, my character has to walk a hundred miles to get to a gas station, it is the journey that is important. The struggle to get from the starting destination to the end matters, it tells you something about the significance of their goal. If the character were to just pull up to the gas station in a car, it’s a different story, they are a different character because they have not lived the same circumstances. In the case of Game of Thrones, I feel like they are driving to the gas station which is the plot point, and ignoring the journey to get there, which is the plot. And to ignore that and say, 

“Sansa’s going to return to Winterfell anyway, what does it matter that Littlefinger sold her to her family’s murderers and she was raped?”

“G.R.R.M. confirmed Shireen’s death, what impact does it make if her father is the one that kills her, not Melisandre, not the Wildlings*?” 

“Dany is going to have to fight one of her nephews in the second Dance of Dragons, who cares if it’s Jon, not Aegon?*”

It matters. The journey matters. All of the things the characters suffer makes them who they are and makes their actions have meanings, and since the show versions of these characters have different experiences, different motivations, different lives, even when they do overlap again with their book selves, it’s a poor echo. It’s not the same thing at all. 

And I’ve recently come to the conclusion, even after picking the show back up to engage with my friends, that I really am not invested in the journeys of the show characters, the way their stories have been told, their endgames. To me, Jon is not a king, I don’t care if he gives away his kingdom to his aunt, because the Jon Snow I care about is currently dead. I’m not interested in Bran’s omniscience and how his powers can manipulate the past, because Bran is still a little boy in a cave in the Lands of Always Winter, learning what it means to be a greenseer and a skinchanger. I care about the characters George R.R. Martin has given me and I care about the stories that were so captivating, they made me read for upwards of sixteen hours straight, every day for a week. Stories I loved so much, I read the entire series three times in less than a year. 

The stories that the show has given me don’t even come close to making me feel like that. If the final season aired tonight, I honestly don’t think I’d watch it. But if The Winds of Winter was due to come out at the end of the week, I’d go camp outside the nearest bookstore right now.

*Melisandre or Val being responsible for Shireen’s death and Dany fighting with Aegon for the throne are both speculation at this point, as is the idea the Jon and Dany will have a Dance of Dragons in the show.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

I am genuinely concerned that comic book youtubers are going to create a GamerGate situation where there are extremists who poison the mass perception of people who criticise comic books or certain decisions in general.

 Like I have genuine problems with Amadeus Cho and Jane Foster being Hulk and Thor and I think Riri Williams and Miles Morales are bad characters (the latter being especially saddening because, unlike Riri, he had a strong initial concept powering him). I think Sam as Captain America was creatively problematic and that Marvel have been pulling the replacement hero thing for social/political reasons (and probably not sincere ones at that) as opposed to genuine creative ones. Similarly I think the America book is a lame super hero comic book and Gabby Rivera isn’t a strong super hero comic book writer. Similarly I think Marvel’s modern editors and assistant editors really do tend to suck at their jobs right now.

 But my rationales for all of those things honestly don’t have much crossover with certain Youtube comic book commentators (I’m sure you’ve all seen the kind) and I actually disagree and believe in a lot of other types of characters and directions cut from the same kinds of cloths as those above examples.

 I think Ice Man being gay made a certain amount of sense with his history and if you did have to pick a classical character to reveal as in the closet he was one of the best choices for it. We are in a position where Bobby could legitimately be given a strong romantic storyline and an iconic (for him, not necessarily within Marvel as a whole) love interest. I mean before Bendis had Jean out Bobby who honestly knew or cared who Bobby’s (comic book, not movie) love interests were? Hardly anybody aside from hardcore X-Men fans and most of them would argue Polaris was really the big one for Bobby. But at the same time most of them shipped Polaris with Havok anyway so what did that matter?

  I’ve said numerous times before Kamala Khan is the best new superhero character to come out of Marvel in the last 20 years. My problems with her series stem from the decompression alongside the fact that I don’t think her villain pool has been managed as well as it needs to be to enable her to last long term.

 Carol becoming Captain Marvel is something I find profoundly organic and logical, a brilliant stroke of character development that makes use of an iconic title by giving it to an iconic character who truly has claim to it. Look to me Carol’s outfit is always going to be the Ms Marvel outfit she wore for decades but at the same time to me Carol’s codename will always be Warbird, not Ms Marvel or Captain Marvel. I’m just from that generation.

 I think the general idea of temporarily having a black person become Captain America is interesting and understand the logic of making it Sam but at the same time I think the book never fulfilled it’s potential and ultimately Issiah Bradely or even Patriot would’ve been a much more interesting choice. But at the end of the day I cannot accept the creative bankruptcy of replacing Steve for the THIRD time and doing it the SECOND time in less than 10 years.

 I like Jane Foster’s Thor outfit, there are moments and aspects to her stories I find interesting but the way the series went about it overly denigrated the real Thor (and yes I will call him the real Thor, it is literally his name and he is supposed to be the actual figure from Norse mythology). I mean he was literally called out as ‘unworthy’ and the reason for his unworthiness made no sense at all. He realizes the Gods are assholes so he loses his worthiness. That isn’t how the hammer works, it’s just a binary ‘you are worthy or you are not’. Conviction in your personal beliefs doesn’t matter or else countless bad guys would be able to lift the hammer too. Additionally there were times where he narrative divulged into cheap, shallow in-universe attempts to ‘comment’ on the backlash against the concept. The Absorbing Man was at least somewhat exaggerating the complaints over a female Thor and at least dabbling in strawman arguments whilst Titania’s solidarity with Foster because she was stepping into the role of a man was utter out of character nonsense considering Titania’s arch nemesis is SHE Hulk. Jane consequently knocking out someone who’d surrendered was also ill considered. And I also cannot get over how we’ve been here before. Beta Ray Bill and Thunderstrike are testament to that. Once again creative bankruptcy.

 I’ve spoken countless times before how I think Miles had a good concept and still has potential but he’s been mismanaged and currently sucks shit as a character and how Marvel and certain fans and certain media outlets building him up as the best thing since sliced bread (or at least as great as Peter Parker) is profoundly unearned.

 I think the quality of editing at Marvel has clearly gone down hill but unless there really is some weird ass super Secret Empire conspiracy wherein Marvel went hardcore into hiring people because of their gender regardless of their qualifications, I don’t think the reason for that decline in quality is due to some (but far from all) of the editors and assistant editors being women. Frankly Steve Wacker is/was a major editorial player for awhile and his only legitimate qualification for being a Spider-Man editor was he could get the product on the shelves on time. The editing present in that product and their overall quality was shit 99% of the time. The guy lacked sufficient knowledge, passion or understanding of the character to really edit Spider-Man properly. This is a guy who was an amateur stand up comedian before entering comic books and has to my knowledge zero writing experience so why the fuck he was qualified to edit anything is beyond me. Maybe the new slew of editors and assistant editors are the same bunch of unqualified morons but I don’t think that’s got much to do with their sex or gender. After all Ann Nocenti was a solid X-Men editor and Molly Lazer edited Spider-Girl which was obviously a brilliant book. And shit Jeanette Kahn was President and EIC of DC comics for over 20 years and MOST of the stuff under her tenure was baller as shit. John Byrne Superman. Frank Miller Batman. Perez Wonder Woman. Wolfman Titans. DeMatteis/Giffin JLI. Kyle Rayner Green Lantern. Vertigo. Milestone. Watchmen. Frankly she oversaw what was maybe the single best EIC tenure for DC EVER in terms of quality.

  I gave up reading Coates’ BP run because I found it dull but I think T’Challa SHOULD have a book along with Blade, Luke Cage, Shang Chi and Jessica Jones.

I think the America Chaves series was problematic as a superhero story but the times where it does focus on the normal life stuff are generally good.

I was very impressed by Spider-Gwen when she debuted and looked forward to her ongoing, even defended her debut issue until I realized the critics were ont he money and it sucked and continues to suck to this day. It’s a profoundly shallow book but it could have been great and I supported it initially hoping it would be great.

I felt the Chelsea Cain Mockingbird series had moments of poor research, mischaracterisation and disingenuousness. I am specifically talking about how in issue #3 (I think) Cain uses Bobbi as a mouthpiece to criticise the lack of female representation within superhero comics. Okay cool. But she did it by essentially pretending that there never were any in the Marvel universe, that they got no respect in-universe and that Bobbi herself was at most a teenager growing up inspired by those male heroes whom she could never be like because she was male. Except there were female heroes, they did get in-universe respect (maybe not as much as was deserved but it wasn’t like people forgot they existed) and Bobbi is clearly too old to have grown up with any of the heroes other than the WWII guys like the Invaders. 

Similarly her retconning of the Phantom Rider thing in her final issue fixed one problem but did so utterly illogically whilst opening up multiple other problems. Look I’d also retcon the Hell out of Phantom Rider gaslighting and raping Mockingbird if given the chance I hate that plotline. But Cain retconned it by just having Mockingbird say that the stuff we have clear on the page evidence of didn’t actually happen. She was saying the colour blue is the colour red and always had been but it wasn’t. And Cain’s new spin on that Phantom Rider thing essentially threw Hawkeye under the bus by making him profoundly insecure and an asshole, because he’d rather believe his wife was raped rather than she cheated on him. Not to mention if Cain’s story is to be believed Mockingbird let the man she was sleeping with die for exactly no reason. There were other times during Cain’s run where I felt she was mischaracterizing some people or else was being too on the nose about stuff. 

But there were other times I thought the series was really funny, really action packed, i generally loved the pacing and I felt when it did cut more realistic (like the first issue when Bobbi is having a health check up) or in issue #3 when it was discussing the psychology of a sixth grade girl (even though said girl’s story had insufficient resolution, like did she go to jail or what?) it was incredibly refreshing. Truth be told a lot of the stuff in that series writing wise becomes easier to understand when you realize it’s partially a zany comedy and not really taking itself too seriously nor is it asking you to do the same, which is starkly different to say Spider-Gwen’s approach wherein it is playing stuff seriously but there is arbitrarily zany shit thrown in for the sake of it.

 I think Laura becoming Logan’s successor makes sense but it doesn’t mean it’s okay to just axe off Logan because he’s broken. FIX him and then down the line replace him. Laura’s book as is frankly just...an okay X-23 book with a new costume. I never cared for Laura outside of X-Men Evolution or the Logan movie (where she was more endearing) anyway.

 I didn’t agree with the female exclusive screenings of the Wonder Woman film but I also felt Zeus’s involvement in her origin was an unacceptable compromising of the specific feminist ideas and messages Wonder Woman was supposed to represent. I felt the same way about Azzarello’s run on the character which is where the Zeus origin came from and was happy Greg Rucka tried to fix that in his 2016 run.

 I’ve said before a poc actor playing Peter Parker is fine and dandy in my book and I was very open to Zendaya possibly playing Mary Jane (until I saw the movie...ugh...). My only concerns were in a significant way having the characters change to reflect the realities of them now being poc.

 I’ve suggested some basic ideas on how to maybe get more representation in Marvel and DC, including for queer, Trans and mentally ill characters and as I’ve seen it I’ve called shit out I found to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, e.g. I was disgusted by Civil War II killing off Rhodey and called out the way Cindy Moon was initially handled by Slott. And my frequent lambasting of MJ’s depiction under Slott (especially in Superior #2) should I hope by this point go without saying.

 So yeah my views don’t line up with those of Diversity and Comics but nor do they line up with those of ComicsAlliance and their hordes either. But because of people like the former people like the latter are going to broadbrush label and demonize people like me. People who might SEEM like we agree with guys like D&C but actually we’re coming at it from a very different angle and we don’t actually agree with their rationales 99% of the time.

 But in the times we live in right now nuance is apparently as dead as Batman’s parents.

 Frankly as I get older I guess I see myself socially/politically speaking being more of a moderate when it comes to comic books...and right now that feels like a profoundly lonely place to be.

[50cyg]

[1/2]Hi you have a great blog! Just wanted to drop a note cuz folks are so mad about Meiko but to add her as a character is a choice I respect--having a new character be a catalyst for a new plot is a way of keeping fans pleased with representations of their faves, i.e. having a new character shake things up means that writers can keep the baseline of characterizations that fans love for the original digidestined.(Personally I think tri!Yamato is very in-character but this also seems unpopular)

Thank you! I’m glad you like it :)

First of all, how people are responding to Meiko, from both sides, is frustrating to me. 

Many Anti-Meiko fans don’t actually spend the time to properly convey what they dislike about her and just say she’s a shitty character and they didn’t come to see a new characters steal screen time. While I semi-agree with these statements, they ultimately have no purpose beyond releasing frustration. Which I guess is why people make them. 

On the flip side you have Pro-Meiko fans who say that the only reason people dislike Meiko is because she’s new. They also defend every action the character has taken, or not taken. 

Then these two opposing groups do nothing but fuel each other and what we get is a war instead of actual discussion and thoughtful criticism of the character and the story surrounding her. Basically, I just don’t like extremes of any kind. 

I don’t hate Meiko, I like aspects of her and also find myself relating to her sometimes. But I don’t like the way she is handled and think her inclusion is unnecessary. 

Now, in response to your statement, I’d like to start by saying that you are completely entitled to your opinion and I think there are people who would agree with you. However, I do not.

(Warning, mild Anti-Meiko ahead)

Even with Meiko’s inclusion, Tri is shaking up the characters. Taichi and Yamato in some ways have switched their stances regarding how to handle situations. Taichi’s character and his conflicts are at the forefront of the series and we can see the ways in which he has stayed the same and the ways in which he has changed. He is definitely not the exact same as he was when he was 11. Many people in the fandom who see Taichi as a more one dimensional character were really thrown off by how much Tri is highlighting Taichi’s more hesitant side, even though we saw it a number of times in Adventure, and even in 02.

We can see that Tri/Yamato has been pretty heavily influenced by Adventure Taichi. He has gone from the kid who doesn’t want to climb up a mountain in case of danger to the guy that knows if they don’t fight Alphamon more people will get hurt. He has become the one who moves forward first. This is not in line with his established character in Adventure but rather a result of Taichi’s influence on him over the years. Vice versa Taichi has been influenced by Yamato, which we saw happen throughout adventure and which was highlighted when we see Taichi think “what would Yamato do?” in response to someone asking him if they should go to Pinocchiomon’s house. Now this does not mean that either is acting OOC. When I said once that Yamato is out of character I was talking about the fact that he is out of character from his established 02 self. 02 Yamato is far far more laid back, while as Tri Yamato is very similar to Adventure Yamato. Both Tri/Taichi and Tri/Yamato feel like older versions of their Adventure selves, who have grown and been influenced by each other over the years.

So yeah, Tri is not afraid of making alterations to characters or dynamics or putting certain aspects of a character more to the forefront. 

They also are not afraid of giving pre-existing characters personality transplants. There is really only one scene in the Adventure universe, prior to Tri, where we see Takeru troll anybody. This scene is when he trolls Pinocchimon. Tri then took that minor minor glipse into Takeru’s troll side and decided to multiply it by a thousand, effectively making him the troll king of the Adventure universe (though I’d argue Wizardmon is a bigger troll but that’s a post for another day :P). I’ve seen virtually zero complaints made about this change in his personality. In fact, virtually everyone loves it. It makes Takeru a far more compelling character. Him being a troll is now one of his defining characteristics, when it was previously a tiny tiny aspect that was created and used to execute one scene. 

Furthermore, despite Meiko’s inclusion they still have pre-established characters in conflict with one another. Taichi and Yamato are in conflict. Sora gets angry with Taichi and Yamato. Yamato was angry with Jyou. Mimi and Koushiro were in conflict. Jyou stands up against Taichi in Kyosei. Koushiro stands up to Yamato in Kyosei. Hikari has literally just brought on the apocalypse. There is in fighting happening throughout the entire series.

Finally, they do not have to mischaracterize them for Drama. Many people were very engaged by the plot line of Patamon getting infected and no one had to be mischaracterized for the drama of those scenes to be effective. Hikari was not mischaracterized for the drama of her giving into the darkness to be executed well. As far as I’ve seen, fans have not had an issue with having bad things happen to either of these characters. In fact, fans like me love seeing our faves suffer. Think of how much more effective it would have been to have Jesmon trying to kill a pre-established character that we love. How would fans have reacted if Jesmon was trying to kill Patamon? I guarantee it would have brought on more emotions than him trying to kill Meicoomon. 

So yeah, I don’t agree. I hold to my belief that Meiko’s inclusion was not necessary. I think fans would have been happier had she not been included and instead we’d gotten tragic things happening to the pre-existing characters. This is all hypothetical though, and anyone who reads this post is free to comment whether they agree or disagree. 

[pointykeef]

Correct me if im wrong but- werent the vlogs made before S3/4? Which is essentially one season as it was supposed to be? If that were the case and had S3/4 came out at the same time than it would make sense why Lance's vlog was what it was. Lance has always respected Allura but it wasn't until recently did Lance start to mature (somewhat) out of his flirty habit. Sure the vlog could've been about his family but again, these are vlogs not episodes- it'd be bad writing to show character development via 3 minute youtube clips. These vlogs just recapped on what we already know, or should've known, about the characters including Keith.

(skip this Keith rant if you want)

It makes no sense to me why people think the vld crew favors Keith. That he got character development in his blog of all things. If you had paid attention to season 2 and stopped whining about how Keith had so much screen time (which? blows my mind even more that ya'll missed so much important information about him) that it was obvious Keith had lots of emotional baggage. Hell, we had hints of that even beforehand when it was revealed he was an orphan. Ofc I won't push orphan stigmas onto anyone but fact is, thats how media portrays it and there are certainly horror stories flying around them as well. But besides the point, The Blade of Marmora episode hinted and foreshadowed many points about Keith's vlog and season 4.

"The suit shows his greatest hopes and fears" - Kolivan about Keith witnessing Fake!Shiro potentially leave Keith behind

"Then you've chosen to be alone" - Fake!Shiro abandoning Keith ie. his fear of rejection

"Your mother will be here soon" - Keith's dad, hinting Keith's moms disappearance

So Keith's character development/backstory? It was there the whole time. If you complain that it wasn't clear enough to you than my advice is to probably pay attention to the show instead of whining about it. The only reason why Keith's vlog might've seemed 'better' than everyone elses, other than you mischaracterizing him the whole time, is that it was slightly emotional. Something people can relate to. Which I don't know if I should be offended that ya'll wouldn't talk about Allura for 3 minutes straight if not longer.

(Back to Lance)

See, I've been in this fandom for only 5 months now but I've already picked up the behaviorisms of this fandom especially with Lancestans. And it all roots back to Lance saying the infamous "7th wheel" line or his homesickness. And I won't forget that Klance™ bedroom scene either. But here's the thing, and you can disagree with me on this, but I dont think Lance was ever planned to be a deep character. If you didn't know already, we are half way finished with Voltron. And there are just too many plot points that need to be animated for the 37 rest episodes. These points include: Keith's family, Lotor's mission, Zarkon's revival, Galaxy Garrison's secrets, Project Kuron, Lotor's ex-Generals, Samuel Holt, Formation of the rebels/BoM, etc. Not to mention hinted Pre-Kerberos as well. With those plot points in mind, I DO believe we will get information on Lance's family as well. Along with Hunk and Shiro. Next to Lance, we know absolutely nothing about Shiro's family and as far as we know, Hunk is an uncle based on the comics. Do you see where I'm getting at here? Yes the creators have said that Lance and the others will get their character development; but I do not believe it will be extensive as Keith, Allura or Shiro's. Writing wise, Lance is an average guy. He doesn't HAVE a deep backstory to revolve around as far as we know. And I theorize, and this is based on Lauren Montgomery's words in a previous con, that he is insecure or feels like the 7th wheel because he was his own main character before Voltron. As in he was already the center of attention save for his time in the GG. Which btw I doubt he was neck to neck with Keith, some of the students in Ep 1 clearly had better experiance than Lance and this was just him ego-boosting. What we know is that he is in a big family. What we heard is that he is the youngest sibling who takes care of his nephews and neices. And while being the youngest does not automatically make you the center of attention, it is a very large trope both on screen and real life. Trust me, I'm the oldest. My parents were middle childs and two of my bestfriends are also the youngest. More often than not the youngest child is favored albeit not always intentionally.

So to conclude, do I believe Lance will get character development? Yes. Just not as much as so many want him to have. And out of all the people in the series, Allura is the most likely candidate to help Lance in his development which is why his vlog AND S3/4 focused on their interactions a lot. Whether their relationship remains platonic or ends in romance is still up to date but you can't argue that Allura is an important person to Lance's character arc.

[masterthespianduchovny]

That’s your problem: you’re assuming that I’m l trying to prove that she’s isn’t morally grey when I’m really arguing that your argument is flawed. I don’t give a damn that Dany is morally gray. I don’t need her to be pure hearted like Jon. But, just because you conceded on one point doesn’t mean this is a good faith argument, especially when you hold Dany as a child as equally as responsible as men in the 40-60s for practicing slavery. Then you essentially said that there is no excuse. And when I try to explain context for why she was in that situation, youre incredibly dismissive when you say, “you’re just excusing Dany’s behavior.” That’s why this is a bad faith discussion. The points you’re really trying to argue are the points you refuse to be open minded on.

Please don’t use “Dany Apologist”, it’s fucking gross because you’re pulling from rape apologist.

I notice that you’re changing your stance from saying I’m refusing to admit that Dany is wrong to “even you can’t defend this action of hers.” Truth is, many characters have actions that we can’t defend. Doesn’t make them less interests or that they’re morally bad characters. It appears that you’re struggling to hold on to how Dany is dark and you’re clutching onto anything that proves she’ll turn bad. Who’s the one showing absolute refusal and bias again?

You are, hun, you are. There is nothing good faith about this argument on your end. I’ve been very consistent about where I stand and why? You’re slightly and consistently changed your stance when proven wrong or illogical.

Ironically, I didn’t give a shit about Dany until people started blatantly shitting on her in season 8. I was largely indifferent. But, since I’ve been objectively watching her for 8 seasons, you can’t feed me shit and expect me to grin and bare it. I will not tolerate bullshit just because someone dislikes a character.

You haven’t shown shit and it’s hilarious for you to mischaracterize what I said because you’re frustrated that I’m not agreeing with you. Hun, everyone can read this, they can see how illogical you’re being. They can see how you’ve spiraled into “madness” because I’m not saying “omg! You’re so right.” And to think, you did that song and dance about how you don’t mind disagreement as long as people are respectful, which I’ve been for the most part. But, you’ve increasingly disrespected me the more I disagreed with you. Lol

Girl—😂

Daenerys Targareyan: The Path Towards Madness.

Okay let’s begin.

Intro: I read book 1. And then, I binge watched seasons 1-6 after season 6 finale. By that time, I knew all the major theories like L+R=J, dark!dany, targ!tyrion etc.

So, I was paying extra attention and these are some of the obvious moments where I felt they showed Dany’s mad side show. Some points, you may find valid. Some points you may find silly and over-reaching. In any case, this is what *I* felt.

Feel free to have discussions. Appreciate positive critisism. However, just yelling/abusing will not be tolerated.

1. Lack of Empathy

Her obvious lack of empathy when her brother was killed.

I did not expect her to save him. I did not expect her to mourn him. I did not even expect her to cry for him. I did, however, expect a reaction, any sort of reaction, when someone close (despite him being an abusive asshole) died that suddenly and that violently.

2. Her facial expression during Drogo’s speech.

“I will kill the men in iron suits and tear down their stone houses! I will rape their women, take their children as slaves and bring their broken gods back to Vaes Dothrak!”

3. During her Breaker of Chains phase, she conviniently seemed to forget that she used to practice not only slavery, but also pillaging while she was with her khalesar.

Master Illeryoi owned slaves. Her brother owned slaves. She was gifted slaves to teach her how to please the Khal.

Her husband was a war-lord and her khalesar constantly raided and pillaged villages. They killed men. They raped women. Remaining alive women were taken as sex slaves and later sold. That was their way of life. She saved Mirri Maz Duur and several other women from the fate of gang raoe abd murderm but they were still dragged along side the khalasar as slaves. In books, the reason MMD was not sold was so that she can assist Dany during childbirth.

4. The burning of Mirri Maz Duur (MMD)

This is going to make sense to a lot of people. But confuse the fuck out of many. But let’s see.

In colonized countries, we have a term called “Savior’s Complex”. It is where a colonizer raids a country, steal its riches, impose extreme taxing, destory most of its heritage and then expect praise for bringing something (could be education, technology, architecture).

Dany takes the complex another step above. She not only expects gratitude from an enslaved MMD while dragging her along with her khalesar with sole purpose of assistance with childbirth, she also expects her to save the life of her husband. The war-lord whose khalesar raided her home, pillaged her village, killed her countrymen, raped/killed her countrywomen, dragged remaining alive women along with the khalesar to be sold later. Despite all this, Dany expects gratitude from MMD for her life. This flawed logic however is thrown back in her face.

“So, tell me again exactly what it was that you saved?”

“Your life.”

“Why don’t you take a look at your Khal? Then you will see exactly what life is worth, when all the rest has gone.”

This is an old age tale of revenge. Khal raided her village. She took revenge on them for destroying her temple. Dany burned her for it.

What completely bamboozled me in this fandom was how much people hated MMD for what she did while completely making Dany the victim in this scenario while forgetting that MMD was the orginal victim who was not only an enslaved prisoner of war, but also gang-raped victim of her khalesar’s doing.

5. Ser Barriston’s words.

Ser Barriston in Mereen, tells her to treat injustice with mercy. She replies that she will treat injustice with justice.

Another quote by Ser Barriston: “He gave people the people the justice he thought they deserved.”

Justice and what people in power percieve as justice is often very different.

6. Daenerys’ justice for the crucified slave children

She did that by choosing 163 random Great Masters and crucifying them to avenge the 163 slave children. This seems like justice. But is it, really? They never recieved trial. They were never proven guilty. Like Hizdahr Loraq said, some of the masters were not in favor of crucifying children and tried very hard to stop it. Who knows how many other good masters she crucified?

This is a direct parallel to Ser Barriston’s words about Mad King Aerys: “He gave people the people the justice he thought they deserved.”

7. She stopped slavery only when it benefitted her.

Some of you, while reading point 6, may have thought, “They were SLAVERS! So what?!”.

Well, while choosing 163 masters, Dany decided that all Masters are her enemies. She decided that all of them deserved punishment. She decided that they were guilty just for engaging in slavery while conviniently forgetting that if that were the case, she should be the one in the first cross.

8. She burnt Great Masters without even investigating who were behind the Sons of Harpy’s attack.

After Ser Barriston’s death, we again get to see more of her twisted sense of justice. By her own words, “Who is innocent? Maybe all of you are, maybe none of you are. Maybe, I should let the dragons decide.”

It is not supposed to be called justice if you punish (and a cruel punishment, at that) without even caring whether they are innocent or not.

9. “You are a conquerer. Not a ruler.”

Time and time again Dany proves this to be true. She conquered Yunkai and left immeidetely. The slavers took back the city in no time. She closed off the fighting pits and refused to open them despite being told that participants will be free men who enter willingly. This is where ruling comes in. Any place she conquered and freed, she failed to put something else to keep up the economy. She collapsed the economy so bad that slaves were selling themselves again. 10. Wrongful imprisonment.

Dany finds that Drogon has harmed children. The correct response is to either train or punish the dragons. She, however, imprisons the two dragons who werent at fault while Drogon ran free. Does that mean she is not responsible for whatever terror or death Drogon caused to wherever he flew off to? What exactly does imprisoning Rhaegar and Viseryion get her?

What kind of justice is it where the accused is free while the innocent get prisoned for assosiation. Again, feeds into the twisted justice train.

11. Twisted Justice. Hipocrisy. Again.

While many men were fed to dragons, Hizdahr Loraq was imporisoned. He begged for mercy in terror.She also decides that she will show her respect for Meereen by marrying a member of one of its great families. For a woman who was forced into marriage and “sold like a broodmare”, she sure didn’t feel any moral dilemma in making a terrifed man betroth her. His death though, proved that he was not at all involved with Sons of HAry and thet he was imprisoned for nothing.

12. Burning POW’s

Burning Tarly’s (father and son) was a direct paralell to her father burning Ned’s father and brother alive. You cannot hide behind “It was a war. She gave them a choice.” No matter what defenses one can attempt to give her, killing (forget burning) POW is a war crime. So is forcing prisoners against their own side of war.

13. Defending cruelty in path of justice

She killed Tarly’s and defended that decision, by saying that was necessary.

When Hizdahr asks her how many men will have died to achieve her goal, she says “They would have died for a greater cause.” She is talking about destroying cities and sure, that must be for a greater purpose.

When Tyrion reminds her that about what her father planned to do when she said she wnated to burn Mereen to the ground.. her response was “This is different,”. How, exactly?

“The easiest way to defend cruelty is to say that it is part of the destiny.”

14. The insinct to burn down cities.

By s8e01, she has wanted to burn down cities thrice. Meereen - once. King’s Landing - twice. Both times, she had to be talked out of it by her advisors. The fact that her first instinct when her plans were failing was to burn down cities. Direct parallel to Aerys wanting to destroy king’s landing because he thought there were traitors everywhere. The fact is that a person can surrond themselves with good counsel. But it is not necessary that the counsel is always heeded. Which is what happened to Aerys. He was going incresingly mad for months and his counsel members hid the fact from the outside world because they thought they could control the madness. We all know what happened in the end.

Since s7, Dany has been becoming increasingly paranoid about Tyrion’s loyalty and increasingly more frustrated with every loss. How long before she decides not to listen to them anymore?

15. The entire collonialist/white savior imagary presented in Essos.

It is amazing how most of the fandom either ignores it or is just unaware of it.

Though this point doesnt parallel anything to the show, i just found it extremely cringy. I am sure members of most colonized countries would. I cant even beging to describe how cringy that mysha scene was.

16. The typical white priviledge mentality.

She wants to inherit her ancestor’s throne and power. But she doesnt want to repent for her ansestor’s sins and betrayal.

17. Wrong sense of entitlement

She truly believes that she is entitled to the North’s fealty. She asks Jon Snow not to judge her based on her ancestors and in the same breath asks him to hold up the vows of his ancestors.

But, whatever vow the Starks made to the Targareans was broken the moment Aerys decided to burn the Starks. The fealty was made on promise of protection. Technically, any member of the houses that Aerys burnt, is no longer accountable to the vow.

Still, she expects everyone to uphold their fealty but refusing to accpet that her father broke that fealty when he decided to burn the vassels (whom he promised to protect) alive.

18. Savior Complex

Some parts of Dany reminds me of how missionaries work.

“Will your God punish me for not praying to him if I did not know about him?”

“No.”

“Then why did you tell me about him?”

I believe one thing about Daenerys Targareyan. That she truly wants to help people. That she truly wants to save people. But her problem is, she wants to be the one to save people. She doesnt seem to understand that some people dont require saving.

She talks about freeing the world of tyrants and in the same breath refuses to give North the independence that they demand in solidarity. How is that not the definition of tyranny?

This is Westeros. I am not expecting a democracy and free elections. If she wants to be a conquerer, then she can be one. If she wants to bring to bring together the 7k, she can. What she cannot do is talk about destiny, talk about a wheel, talk about breaking the wheel, and and then do the exact same thing her ansestors did years go by spinning the wheel so that she is on top.

19. She was smiling when she saw that her dragons terrified people of Winterfell.

20. “They eat whatever they want”

Is that really the correct way to respond to people are already scared/cowering over the arrival of dragons? To people who have never seen such beasts before? Did she forget that few seasons ago “whatever they want” that Drogon ate were children?

21. Jaime’s trial

She made Jaime stand trial and was heavily leaning towards punish him despite the fact that she knew what her father had planned and what Jaime Lannister had done. She openly spoke in favor of the Mad King in front of Northern Lords. When Tyrion intervened, she publically breated him and questioned his loyalty. Further adds to the Mad King’s paranoia and unwillingness to listen to counsel.

22. Jaime Lannister

Not only has he tried to kill her, he has also questioned her intentions twice. The only living person who knows about Mad King more than anyone is perhaps Jaime Lannister. When he questions Tyrion, “Is she really different? Are you sure?” in a sceptical tone. If he doesnt trust her or thinks she had the Targ madness, then I am willing to bet that she probably does.

23. Her decling human connections

the show seems adament in making her seem alone. Like a stranger in her own home land. In an episode full of emotional reconnections, tenderness, friendships and relationships, she is shown all alone. In later episodes, she is incresingly shown alientated: Theon coming to fight for the starks despite being her bannerman, death of the Jorah, Tyrion’s withdrawal.

24. jorah was her mercy.

She had shown jorah mercy despite his betrayal. She cared for him and most importantly, completely trusted and listened to him. When she felt no remorse about berating Tyrion and strongarming Sansa, jorah urges her to forgive tyrion and to try and make amends with LAdy of Winterfell. And, she listened to him. He is the only advisor she fully trusts and listens to without having to worry about wavering loyalties. And jorah’s death is going to be the acorn in Ice Age that started the avalanche.

<<2 episodes left. will add more after next one airs.>>

This is not to say that she was an evil character. She was a good person with good intentions and bad execution with a twisted sense of justice and destiny. But, the journey to hell is paved with good intensions. Dany was a character who had the potential to be great. But she was always headed to doom. She is a good person whose downfall will be due to pride, ambition and obsession with destiny. She will chose her fate with a sound mind but a flawed personality. Her story will not be heroic, but tragic. Not because of what she was, but because of how she could have been.

[theworldsmosthatedakacr7]

A defence of O Capitão

Logical cross-examination of the most recent criticisms of Cristiano Ronaldo

Another year, another prime selection of milestones achieved for Cristiano Ronaldo. Portugal’s most capped player. The only player to ever score in four Euros. Another Champions League title with Real Madrid. Portugal’s first major tournament trophy. Now, his 4th Ballon d’Or.

Certainly not a bad year. But perhaps it wasn't as good as I thought? I was reasonably convinced that Ronaldo's 2016 was his best ever until reading a piece by respected football writer, Graham Hunter. I recommend that the reader pause here to give his article the once-over before proceeding:  http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/cristiano-ronaldo-decline-hes-not-9444338

It’s important from the outset that I emphasize the intent of this piece. It is indeed meant as a riposte against Mr. Hunter’s argument as well as the generally negative reactions to whenever Ronaldo wins an award. However, while pointing out that logically fallacious reasoning is unbecoming, I’d like to make an effort to recognize that Mr. Hunter’s article does have some merit. However, I believe his assertions to be lacking context, thus distorting whatever truth value they might otherwise hold.

The title of Mr. Hunter’s article juxtaposed with the opening paragraphs leaves some doubt regarding the true intent of the piece.  The “Ronaldo in decline / he’s not as good as Messi” title quickly becomes a query about whether Ronaldo is in fact worthy of being included in the conversation on great footballers altogether, particularly with respect to the likes of Marco Van Basten, Johan Cruyff, and others.

It would be easy for me to mischaracterize Mr. Hunter’s comments, but whether intentional or unintentional, there is clearly a dismissive tone with regard to the legitimacy of not only Ronaldo’s 4th Ballon d’Or, but the claim that he is a great footballer altogether. That Ronaldo’s status as a football legend is still being challenged, even through masked or camouflaged questioning, is lamentable on a number of levels. How does one substantiate that a player as singularly distinguished as Ronaldo not be included in a discussion about football’s greatest-ever players? Well, I don’t know, so I’m not going to attempt that irrational feat.

What Graham Hunter seems to be insinuating is that it is an affront to those great players of football past, the Van Bastens, the Gerd Müllers, the Zidanes, to include Ronaldo in this discussion. Why? I cannot begin to assume, and I’m not going to linger on it because the more significant fallacy committed here is that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with whether Ronaldo is in decline or not as good as Messi. Opining about comparisons between Ronaldo and other great footballers is a separate line of reasoning that in no way addresses Ronaldo's skill or how well he equates specifically with Messi. In logic, this is known as a Red Herring fallacy, an irrelevant distraction that subtly diverts the reader’s attention away from the core issue. It is a premise or set of premises (“Ronaldo probably shouldn’t be considered as great as Zidane, Van Basten, etc) that has no genuine relation to the original proposition (that Ronaldo is in decline/not as good as Messi).

The next section of Mr. Hunter’s assessment of Ronaldo’s Ballon d’Or credentials is equal parts offensive and uninformed. First, that “big old lump” as Mr. Hunter so crassly describes him, is not named Éder. It’s simply Eder, no accent. This is significant because it leads me to question how many additional facts in this discussion were investigated with similar negligence to detail.  Here’s one other finding just to round out that claim: Mr. Hunter describes Portugal’s Euro 2016 squad as a “team of relatively limited ability.” This is despite Portugal’s Young Player of the Tournament winner (Renato Sanches, although you might argue that Raphael Guerreiro was even more deserving) and several others selected in the Team of the Tournament including Ballon d’Or nominees Pepe and Rui Patrício.

In his article, Mr. Hunter seems to be asserting two mutually exclusive rationales: that Portugal weren’t a very good team that required Ronaldo to push them onward, AND that Portugal as a team (or maybe just Eder) actually won the Euros independent of Ronaldo. Stated in this fashion, only one side of the argument can be true at any given moment. Wouldn’t it be more rational to conclude that Portugal were truly one of the top teams at the Euros AND were buoyed by Ronaldo’s critical contributions? Instead, Mr. Hunter tries to simultaneously deprive both Portugal as a team, and Ronaldo as an individual of any real credit, and no matter how hard I try, I cannot rationally authenticate that particular conclusion.

This paragraph culminates with the proposal that Messi’s plight over the last few years has simply been harder than Ronaldo’s, what with all those Copa America and World Cup finals defeats. 3 finals in a row, and not one victory. Why? According to Graham Hunter only because the likes of Higuain, Kun Agüero, Ángel Di Maria, and others couldn’t do for Messi what that “big lump Éder” did for Ronaldo.

But categorically his assertion is a Begging the Question fallacy in which the argument made – that Messi’s effort to win a major tournament with Argentina has been fraught with greater difficulty over the course of his career – is a foregone conclusion. It is regarded as fact before it has been reasonably proven with logical argument. In an effort to prove his point, Mr. Hunter simply blames Messi’s teammates for falling at the last and crucial hurdle, ultimately depriving him of the Ballon d’Or. Would Messi himself agree with that assessment?

Moreover, Mr. Hunter seems to be ignoring the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters apparently disagree with his stance that Messi had the better year as evidenced by the landslide margin in favor of Ronaldo (745 votes to Messi’s 316). He’s free to disagree with them of course, but within the international football community at large, the case in favor of Messi clearly isn’t as cut and dry as he claims it to be.

This brings me to my final point regarding Mr. Hunter’s article before I speak more generally about Ronaldo’s reputation. Op-eds like this one are meant to provide a stage for a writer to declare their free thoughts and ideas. In that sense there is certainly room for anecdotal observation and even some emotional appeal. Graham Hunter and others are justifiably entitled to declare their opinion that Messi is a better footballer than Ronaldo.

The problem is that argument nearly always hinges on some form of logically erroneous paradigm. As Ronaldo has aged, and as he collects more accolades, there seems to be a similarly growing “emotional need” to try to discredit him. There are many reasons why this is the case. Admittedly, some of it is a reaction to Ronaldo’s overactive ego. Some of it is that Messi is considered to be the more likable person of the two. A portion of it is evidence-based, and Mr. Hunter does include some reference to player metrics (goals/assists) and other means of assessing individual worth. (If he had simply said, "I consider Messi to be superior because he scored more goals and created more assists," I might not agree with that assertion entirely, but at least it'd be rational.)

But a large segment of the effort to discredit Ronaldo entails unmitigated disregard of facts, specifically those facts which are uncomfortable for anti-Ronaldo propagandists to accept. The intent isn’t as much about comparing him to Messi as it is to suggest he’s not deserving, period. Those are two very different assertions. Most people seem to want to find a way (any way will do) to prevent Ronaldo from being labelled as one of the greatest ever footballers. But if you compare his achievements with those of other footballing greats, there is clearly every reason (even outside the 4 Ballon d’Ors) to include Ronaldo alongside them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone making similar inquires about Messi, nor should they. His status like Ronaldo's isn't debatable any more. Why then is it acceptable to constantly undermine Ronaldo's claim as a footballing legend? Because people don't like him? Is this really an acceptable standard for rational argument in our day and age? I sincerely hope not, but I fear in this case it is.

To invoke a scientific platitude, Ronaldo’s career status as one of the greatest footballers of all time has been substantiated “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the myriad of individual and team achievements he has collected. The body of evidence is so convincing in fact, that it requires football writers, fanboys, American pundits who know nothing about football, and everyone else to try to fashion an emotionally charged, logically invalid contention that is usually more directed at Ronaldo’s character than anything else. Is Ronaldo in decline? Maybe, but not nearly as much as the potency of those arguments meant to deprive him of the prestige that he has rightfully earned.

I’ll close by pointing out that I have made no personal attacks against Graham Hunter, Messi, or anyone else for that matter. But whether you consider Messi to be superior to Ronaldo or not, shouldn’t we all agree that they are both going to be regarded as two of the greatest of all time? Isn’t it remarkable that Ronaldo has 4 Ballon d’Ors, period?  

I’ve always despised the Ronaldo-Messi debate because it provides just the right stage for incoherent and unreasonable babble that is too rooted in prejudice to have any real merit. I hate to see Graham Hunter get caught up in that because I’ve always liked his work. But enough is enough, Ronaldo is one of the greatest ever footballers, full stop. All this talk of him never deserving anything needs to come to an end. There’s so much more I could say, but I don’t have time or space.

I’m appealing to reason. If you don’t think Ronaldo is as good as Messi, ok, but that opinion should never be used to suppress Ronaldo’s worth as a footballer. There’s never been much to separate Ronaldo and Messi, and that was just as true in 2016 as it has been in every year since 2008. But realize it isn’t necessary to disprove everything about Ronaldo’s worth as a player just to esteem Messi. They can both be great. They both are great. This isn’t a zero sum game. Stop feeling and start thinking. Ask harder questions, submit your own arguments to greater scrutiny, and appreciate that you got to see Ronaldo at the top of his game this year.

Nathan Motz