forum The Roodeness Shenanigans

Started May 27, 2020 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

1. i am happy it was represented too. i said that. i made it very clear that i was ecstatic to see my disorder in a main character. it was represented fine, but it wasn't represented great. that's the only point being made here, not that it wasn't at all or that it was done wrong. we are simply saying that rick left out the more ugly parts of it

2. liking the books is fine. i loved two of those series', and i even liked divergent, though it had it's obvious flaws. however, you can't ignore the authors' choices. it's literally that simple. rick has kinda grossly misrepresented poc characters, and jkr is just a dick and a bad person, and i literally do not care what roth is up to. nobody said it was bad to like them, at least not here

Stop pretending we're attacking you. Literally none of us care what books you like and it's self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and annoying as fuck when you victimize yourself.

I'm not pretending you're attacking me at all? Stop pretending I'm pretending you're attacking me. I'm just saying some of these books are really good and you're nitpicking books that were made with good intentions.

Yes. You are. You barely even know what playing the victim means, let alone how to recognize it. We were having a conversation that you weren't even a part of, you don't get to tell us to stop discussing problems with books we like or used to like. You're inserting yourself in what's maybe an attempt to get everyone to like you and if that's what you're doing, it's not going to work.

my friend, it's not bad to like what they've created but you have to acknowledge when it's flawed and what stereotypes or they used and all that stuff. I love PJO and HP but I also know that there's a lot of things that aren't great about it! you can enjoy while still acknowledging the faults

Stop pretending we're attacking you. Literally none of us care what books you like and it's self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and annoying as fuck when you victimize yourself.

I'm not pretending you're attacking me at all? Stop pretending I'm pretending you're attacking me. I'm just saying some of these books are really good and you're nitpicking books that were made with good intentions.

Yes. You are. You barely even know what playing the victim means, let alone how to recognize it. We were having a conversation that you weren't even a part of, you don't get to tell us to stop discussing problems with books we like or used to like. You're inserting yourself in what's maybe an attempt to get everyone to like you and if that's what you're doing, it's not going to work.

Imagine thinking that "good intentions" absolves your book of flaws. Newsflash, bitch: you can have the best intentions in the world and still fuck up.

Stop pretending we're attacking you. Literally none of us care what books you like and it's self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and annoying as fuck when you victimize yourself.

I'm not pretending you're attacking me at all? Stop pretending I'm pretending you're attacking me. I'm just saying some of these books are really good and you're nitpicking books that were made with good intentions.

it isn't nitpicking to point out glaring and sometimes harmful flaws in books. cool your jets. we're discussing the things that were bad from both a writing and a reading point of view

we are a writing site after all, so we're bound to talk about how some popular series' are filled with flaws. it's not our fault you happened to like them, and it's not a problem, either. again, we ourselves liked a bunch of books with problems. i still read the entirety of the hoo series, even though i'm talking about the problems it had

deep inhale being ambitious doesn't fucking make you evil or give you a greater likelihood of it. That's not how evil or ambition works. Evil people often are ambitious, yes, but there are just as many good people who are ambitious. Is it evil of my to have ambitions to be a great author? Is it evil that I want to be in charge of something? Is it evil to want to be independent? No. It isn't. Don't spout bullshit about how being ambitious makes you more likely to be evil

No just that out of ambitious, brave, smart, and kind, the quality that is most likely to lead to someone being evil is ambitious. Everyone is ambitious, I am too. Just that it's the most of a flaw out out of those.

Stop pretending we're attacking you. Literally none of us care what books you like and it's self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and annoying as fuck when you victimize yourself.

I'm not pretending you're attacking me at all? Stop pretending I'm pretending you're attacking me. I'm just saying some of these books are really good and you're nitpicking books that were made with good intentions.

Yes. You are. You barely even know what playing the victim means, let alone how to recognize it. We were having a conversation that you weren't even a part of, you don't get to tell us to stop discussing problems with books we like or used to like. You're inserting yourself in what's maybe an attempt to get everyone to like you and if that's what you're doing, it's not going to work.

I'm literally just talking. In a public conversation. In a debate thread. I didn't tell you to stop I just added my input about it. My opinion is Rick Riordan has done a lot more good than harm with his books and the attitude of the conversation felt like you were pointing out his flaws without acknowledging all the good, so I wanted to make sure to acknowledge Rick Riordan has great intentions and does a lot of good.

deep inhale being ambitious doesn't fucking make you evil or give you a greater likelihood of it. That's not how evil or ambition works. Evil people often are ambitious, yes, but there are just as many good people who are ambitious. Is it evil of my to have ambitions to be a great author? Is it evil that I want to be in charge of something? Is it evil to want to be independent? No. It isn't. Don't spout bullshit about how being ambitious makes you more likely to be evil

No just that out of ambitious, brave, smart, and kind, the quality that is most likely to lead to someone being evil is ambitious. Everyone is ambitious, I am too. Just that it's the most of a flaw out out of those.

It's really not though.

deep inhale being ambitious doesn't fucking make you evil or give you a greater likelihood of it. That's not how evil or ambition works. Evil people often are ambitious, yes, but there are just as many good people who are ambitious. Is it evil of my to have ambitions to be a great author? Is it evil that I want to be in charge of something? Is it evil to want to be independent? No. It isn't. Don't spout bullshit about how being ambitious makes you more likely to be evil

No just that out of ambitious, brave, smart, and kind, the quality that is most likely to lead to someone being evil is ambitious. Everyone is ambitious, I am too. Just that it's the most of a flaw out out of those.

Ambition is just as likely to lead to evil as any of those. There is no fucking reason for you to claim that ambition = higher propensity for evil. If it weren't for ambitious people, this world would be very, very different, and not for the better. You can be brave and still be evil. You can be smart and still be evil. Hell, you can be kind and still be evil. Ambition does not equal evil or a higher likelihood of being evil

Stop pretending we're attacking you. Literally none of us care what books you like and it's self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and annoying as fuck when you victimize yourself.

I'm not pretending you're attacking me at all? Stop pretending I'm pretending you're attacking me. I'm just saying some of these books are really good and you're nitpicking books that were made with good intentions.

Yes. You are. You barely even know what playing the victim means, let alone how to recognize it. We were having a conversation that you weren't even a part of, you don't get to tell us to stop discussing problems with books we like or used to like. You're inserting yourself in what's maybe an attempt to get everyone to like you and if that's what you're doing, it's not going to work.

I'm literally just talking. In a public conversation. In a debate thread. I didn't tell you to stop I just added my input about it. My opinion is Rick Riordan has done a lot more good than harm with his books and the attitude of the conversation felt like you were pointing out his flaws without acknowledging all the good, so I wanted to make sure to acknowledge Rick Riordan has great intentions and does a lot of good.

It's not a goddamned debate thread, get your head out of your ass, you weren't here for any of the name changes of this thread or even the original. You don't even know what it is.

deep inhale being ambitious doesn't fucking make you evil or give you a greater likelihood of it. That's not how evil or ambition works. Evil people often are ambitious, yes, but there are just as many good people who are ambitious. Is it evil of my to have ambitions to be a great author? Is it evil that I want to be in charge of something? Is it evil to want to be independent? No. It isn't. Don't spout bullshit about how being ambitious makes you more likely to be evil

No just that out of ambitious, brave, smart, and kind, the quality that is most likely to lead to someone being evil is ambitious. Everyone is ambitious, I am too. Just that it's the most of a flaw out out of those.

Ambition is just as likely to lead to evil as any of those. There is no fucking reason for you to claim that ambition = higher propensity for evil. If it weren't for ambitious people, this world would be very, very different, and not for the better. You can be brave and still be evil. You can be smart and still be evil. Hell, you can be kind and still be evil. Ambition does not equal evil or a higher likelihood of being evil

But how are kindness, smartness, and bravery AS likely as ambition to make you turn to evil? Kindness is being kind to others, bravery is just doing things even when you're scared to do them. I guess I could see with Ravenclaw, because if you're a mastermind you might be leaning towards evil, so JK Rowling should have made more Ravenclaw villains, but ambition is literally being willing to do anything to achieve your goal. That includes hurting others. None of the other houses have that built into them. But I'm not saying all slytherins are evil and all ambition is bad.

You can have good intentions and still mess up. And frankly, you don't even know the authors' intentions, so….stop simping, maybe?

Harry Potter is a terf,

(Cho chang's name is the British equivalent to ching chong in America.)

Just that it's the most of a flaw out of those.

Ignorant people are the most dangerous

deep inhale being ambitious doesn't fucking make you evil or give you a greater likelihood of it. That's not how evil or ambition works. Evil people often are ambitious, yes, but there are just as many good people who are ambitious. Is it evil of my to have ambitions to be a great author? Is it evil that I want to be in charge of something? Is it evil to want to be independent? No. It isn't. Don't spout bullshit about how being ambitious makes you more likely to be evil

No just that out of ambitious, brave, smart, and kind, the quality that is most likely to lead to someone being evil is ambitious. Everyone is ambitious, I am too. Just that it's the most of a flaw out out of those.

Ambition is just as likely to lead to evil as any of those. There is no fucking reason for you to claim that ambition = higher propensity for evil. If it weren't for ambitious people, this world would be very, very different, and not for the better. You can be brave and still be evil. You can be smart and still be evil. Hell, you can be kind and still be evil. Ambition does not equal evil or a higher likelihood of being evil

But how are kindness, smartness, and bravery AS likely as ambition to make you turn to evil? Kindness is being kind to others, bravery is just doing things even when you're scared to do them. I guess I could see with Ravenclaw, because if you're a mastermind you might be leaning towards evil, so JK Rowling should have made more Ravenclaw villains, but ambition is literally being willing to do anything to achieve your goal. That includes hurting others. None of the other houses have that built into them. But I'm not saying all slytherins are evil and all ambition is bad.

Hufflepuffs aren't always nice and fluffy. Mixing them with ANYONE is, quite frankly, very dangerous. Gryffindors can be a huge danger to themselves and everyone else.

Stop pretending we're attacking you. Literally none of us care what books you like and it's self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and annoying as fuck when you victimize yourself.

I'm not pretending you're attacking me at all? Stop pretending I'm pretending you're attacking me. I'm just saying some of these books are really good and you're nitpicking books that were made with good intentions.

Yes. You are. You barely even know what playing the victim means, let alone how to recognize it. We were having a conversation that you weren't even a part of, you don't get to tell us to stop discussing problems with books we like or used to like. You're inserting yourself in what's maybe an attempt to get everyone to like you and if that's what you're doing, it's not going to work.

I'm literally just talking. In a public conversation. In a debate thread. I didn't tell you to stop I just added my input about it. My opinion is Rick Riordan has done a lot more good than harm with his books and the attitude of the conversation felt like you were pointing out his flaws without acknowledging all the good, so I wanted to make sure to acknowledge Rick Riordan has great intentions and does a lot of good.

It's not a goddamned debate thread, get your head out of your ass, you weren't here for any of the name changes of this thread or even the original. You don't even know what it is.

Sorry I thought this was the debate thread. I got the rudeness and debate confused

Harry Potter is a terf,

(Cho chang's name is the British equivalent to ching chong in America.)

Stop pretending we're attacking you. Literally none of us care what books you like and it's self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and annoying as fuck when you victimize yourself.

I'm not pretending you're attacking me at all? Stop pretending I'm pretending you're attacking me. I'm just saying some of these books are really good and you're nitpicking books that were made with good intentions.

Yes. You are. You barely even know what playing the victim means, let alone how to recognize it. We were having a conversation that you weren't even a part of, you don't get to tell us to stop discussing problems with books we like or used to like. You're inserting yourself in what's maybe an attempt to get everyone to like you and if that's what you're doing, it's not going to work.

I'm literally just talking. In a public conversation. In a debate thread. I didn't tell you to stop I just added my input about it. My opinion is Rick Riordan has done a lot more good than harm with his books and the attitude of the conversation felt like you were pointing out his flaws without acknowledging all the good, so I wanted to make sure to acknowledge Rick Riordan has great intentions and does a lot of good.

It's not a goddamned debate thread, get your head out of your ass, you weren't here for any of the name changes of this thread or even the original. You don't even know what it is.

Sorry I thought this was the debate thread. I got the rudeness and debate confused

Ah yes, because super strong loyalty (the main Hufflepuff trait) is nowhere near as bad as wanting to succeed in life. Gotcha.

Harry Potter is a terf,

(Cho chang's name is the British equivalent to ching chong in America.)

Just that it's the most of a flaw out of those.

Ignorant people are the most dangerous

She's kind of messed up but the books still mean a lot to a lot of people and it isn't like they're 100% full of bad stuff, even if there is some bad stuff.

I don't get what you're saying with ignorant people are the most dangerous. Wasn't that part of the Divergent thing?

Jesus Christ why are you so needlessly mean to me. Just say you disagree no need for personal attacks.

…kinda of messed up? You do realize that it's a slur to the Asian Community right? Sure, it's not as bad as the n word, but its still a slur nonetheless.

Also didn't know if you knew, that's fucking racist.

Harry Potter is a terf,

(Cho chang's name is the British equivalent to ching chong in America.)

Just that it's the most of a flaw out of those.

Ignorant people are the most dangerous

She's kind of messed up but the books still mean a lot to a lot of people and it isn't like they're 100% full of bad stuff, even if there is some bad stuff.

I don't get what you're saying with ignorant people are the most dangerous. Wasn't that part of the Divergent thing?

It's a statement on its own, sherlock

If you can't handle people criticizing a book you like, maybe get off the internet? I love Harry Potter and Percy Jackson, but I acknowledge their flaws. I even like Divergent, although I don't try to falsely insist that it's a great book. But if you're blind to criticism because you enjoy things, well…that's just kind of sad.

Jesus Christ why are you so needlessly mean to me. Just say you disagree no need for personal attacks.

If you don't want people to speak their mind and be rude, why are you on the fucking rudeness chat????

the hogwarts houses aren't ambition, brave, smart, and kind?

slytherin is ambition, self preservation and knowing your own worth. it's cunning and it's knowing how to get what you want or need. nowhere does it ever say evil, that was joanne kathleen rowling herself who said that

gryffindor is chivalry, bravery, it's the reckless care for the majority. martyrdom and thinking yourself the hero, wanting to be the hero, forgetting that self preservation is important too. in itself, gryffindor can be kindness, but it can also be twisted. because chivalry can mean traditional, and we all know that some of the most 'traditional' characters in the original books were purebloods

ravenclaw is wit, actually. it's not smart. i'd even bet that they have the worst grades out of the whole school, on a general level. it's curiosity and a love of learning, it's wanting to fill your mind and pursue the things that catch your interest. they were never the smart house. people just forgot that wit and smart are different words. wit, meaning something a lot similar to slytherin's cunning, if not similes.

hufflepuff is hardworking and loyal, according to the books. because hufflepuff is where kids go when you can't put them into a binary. it's not kind. there are people who could have been in slytherin there, people who could have stuck themselves in any house but were chosen for hufflepuff because they could have gone to any house.

and god, don't even get me started on how you can't call kids evil. you know how many young children are actually evil? the ones born or made socio or psychopathic. if my little sister was sorted into slytherin, that doesn't make her more likely to be evil. she's just a brat, unrelated.

ambition does not equal a tendency to evil. your upbringing and your own fucking choices do

If you can't handle people criticizing a book you like, maybe get off the internet? I love Harry Potter and Percy Jackson, but I acknowledge their flaws. I even like Divergent, although I don't try to falsely insist that it's a great book. But if you're blind to criticism because you enjoy things, well…that's just kind of sad.

I didn't realize you liked the books, it seemed like you didn't since everyone was only talking about the flaws. I just brought up that they're good things too.

Jesus Christ why are you so needlessly mean to me. Just say you disagree no need for personal attacks.

If you don't want people to speak their mind and be rude, why are you on the fucking rudeness chat????

Also pointing out willfull ignorance isn't a personal attack.

Jesus Christ why are you so needlessly mean to me. Just say you disagree no need for personal attacks.

If you don't want people to speak their mind and be rude, why are you on the fucking rudeness chat????

Because 1. I thought it was the debate chat 2. You are not nearly this mean to anyone else who disagrees with y'all

…kinda of messed up? You do realize that it's a slur to the Asian Community right? Sure, it's not as bad as the n word, but its still a slur nonetheless.

Also didn't know if you knew, that's fucking racist.

Jesus Christ why are you so needlessly mean to me. Just say you disagree no need for personal attacks.

If you don't want people to speak their mind and be rude, why are you on the fucking rudeness chat????

Also pointing out willfull ignorance isn't a personal attack.

You can't even see my posts so how do you know if it's willful ignorance.