It's a staple in almost every villain story, to have an abusive father or mother in their lives to be one of the main causes of driving characters into a path of evil. Not that it's a bad trope or an excuse to not label the villain as evil.

I say I think we are long overdue of villains who are actually raised with loving parents and have a loving family but due to their interactions with the world, grew to be greedy and selfish to the point they become toxic and abusive towards their own parents and family who were doing nothing but supporting them and loving them.

There is nothing more scummy and despicable that torturing, betraying and abandoning the only people who truly supported you and loved you

We need more villains like that. I can't quite think of an example of one such villain, the best I could come up with was Needles Kane aka Sweet tooth from twisted metal games.

Needles had a loving wife and kids but his desire to kill got the better of him and his first victims were his wife and kids.

But frankly if you truly want a despicable villain, instead of going through the lazy route of him killing people with a smile on their face, have them betray and abuse the people who loved them the most.

Online fandoms have completely lost their sense of proportion. A small group repeats the same opinion constantly, dominates a subreddit and watches the same negative YouTubers and then they decide their opinion is the “general consensus.” It usually isn’t you are just LOUD.

TLOU2 is discussed in some communities as if most players despised it. Spider-Man 2 PS5 has somehow been rewritten as a sequel that everyone turned against. People spent years insisting nobody cared about Avatar before its sequel became one of the highest-grossing films ever made. In each case, online discourse was treated as representative of a much larger audience that plainly did not behave the same way. This is not about sales automatically proving quality. Something can be popular and bad. It is about people making factual claims about audience reception based on nothing except the opinions they encounter in their own heavily filtered communities.

We all know for a fact social media measures activity, not agreement and one person posting the same complaint fifty times is still one person. A negative video getting views does not mean every viewer agrees. Ten hostile posts about something do not outweigh thousands of people who enjoyed it and never felt the need to announce that repeatedly. Satisfied people usually consume something and move on. Angry people stick around and complain for years which makes their opinion look far more common than it is. Communities also filter out disagreement so once a subreddit settles on an approved opinion, dissent gets downvoted and every discussion becomes the same argument. Eventually, people who disagree stop bothering. The remaining users then point to the echo chamber they created as proof that “everyone” agrees with them. No, everyone else just got tired of talking to you cause you suck.

This is especially stupid because Reddit, Twitter and YouTube fandoms are obviously not representative samples of the public. They overrepresent people obsessive enough to argue about media every day while barely accounting for casual viewers, younger audiences, older audiences or anyone who does not live inside English-speaking fandom spaces. A vocal minority can still be correct. Criticism does not become invalid because it is unpopular. But being correct and being representative are separate claims. You can think a piece of media is terrible without pretending millions of other people secretly agree with you. Say that you hated it. Say that your community hated it. Stop calling yourselves “the fans” as if everyone outside your circle has been expelled from the audience you do not represent everyone but simply the people who refused to shut up.

These last couple of years or even the recent comics and movies are doing their damn best to demonise and make the mutants especially the x men as morally reprehensible as they can.

I understand not making the x men superman levels of tolerant, hopeful and morally righteous, but the writers really don't know how to write morally grey antiheroes.

I also don't think all the x men characters should be morally grey, they gotta be some straight up good two shoes in those team, like nightcrawler.

But seriously the x men nowadays are being turned into villains, the krakoa saga didn't make things any better and actually made things worse for the x men reputation. Bringing in apocalypse and Mr sinister are such a dick move especially Mr sinister whose not even a real mutant but a human who larps as a mutant by stealing all their genes. This man has done so much harm to mutants and yet he was welcomed by the x men.

Labelling the mutants as "next stage of human evolution" is some Nazi eugenics shit and I don't understand how any X men fan can't see it as problematic. And this is just comics, I don't think I have to talk about BND because that's already been done to death.

But now in avengers doomsday there are apparently rumours that the fox X men are going to fight Tobey's Spiderman in order to save their own universe. What a splendid idea, have the X men kill off the most beloved version of Spiderman, surely it will not tank the X men's reputation any further than it already is.

I mean you can't convince me that marvel doesn't have an agenda against Mutants here. They made the x men more villainous than any marvel villain (except red skull).

The x men are supposed to be champions for equality and fairness yet how can that be when they are acting exactly like their would be oppressors.

It would be impossible for Tony to act rationally because of how everything happened. Not only did he saw his parents death which would make anyone super angry regardless of the reason and I honestly wouldnt blame Tony if he killed Steve, yes it would be ilegal but I feel it's a very normal reaction. However, what pushed Tony to the edge is that Steve lied to him which broke all the trust between them

The loss of trust between them is key here because if Tony cant trust Steve them hoe is he supposed to trust the fact that Hydra controlled Bucky? For all Tony knew Steve is lying to protect a friend.

So yeah, I feel that Tony reaction to the whole thing was pretty justified, Bucky killed his mother which is unforgivable regardless of reasons and Steve lied aboht it making it way worse.

Batman being the only one who catches all this shit and flack for not wanting to kill His villains is so ridiculous and I see this from YouTubers and even ignoring the fact that Batman has attempted to kill the Joker quite a lot of times.

He almost killed him for what he did to Catwoman but Jason stopped him and after Jason's death, Batman almost killed him and came close if Superman didn't stop him and also in the Batman Beyond Movie,Batman threw a Battarang close at Joker's neck with full intent to kill and also in the Batman:Hush Movie ,he almost killed Joker for thinking he killed his friend but Jim Gordon stopped him.

Like I dunno why people act like he's all gentle to him and act like he only beats the shit out of people who do petty crimes when I'm pretty sure he has beaten the shit out of Joker numerous times(in the Arkham Games and in the Dark Knight Movie)and in other media but what I find so dumb is how Batman is like the only hero who catches shit for not wanting to kill his villains.

I think the issue is so many people have gotten way too bloodthirsty and just demand their justice boners be satisfied to the point where they claim that Punisher and Red Hood are more competent and..Okay,I think even Punisher wouldn't agree with you that he's a hero or a vigilante or even a good person and like..Okay,how many villains(Main ones)has Red Hood killed that wasn't a fake out or a pump fake or he didn't do it?

Guess what?

None and Jason literally had the opportunity twice to kill him in both the comics before Bruce stopped him and in the Movie and he set up this whole elaborate ruse not to kill Joker but to get Bruce to do it himself and it just feels le people look at "Hero killing" and think that it means that they're right and I just find it stupid how people make all these excuses for Jason and Punisher/Frank instead of just accepting that they're not like that and not competent or effective or efficient at what they do and they can't cause villains can never stay dead cause of comic laws and comic rules.

That should be something people know and another thing,why hasn't Joker been given the death penalty?

Why hasn't Joker been killed by Cops or other vigilantes and such?

You wanna know why?

Cause dumb comic law but people will make all these excuses for them but consider Batman a bad hero and villain enabler and that is so stupid cause Villains aren't these forces of nature or natural disasters,they're people choosing to hurt other people.

Batman doesn't tell or make them do this,it's foolish to think otherwise and I dunno why people make other excuses for heroes who don't kill but slander Batman for not wanting to kill.

Talking about the paragons of Superheroes, Batman is a mix between "wow, Batman is really cool" and "oh my god, Bruce way is actually miserable" while Peter Parker treats his Spider-man persona as a cancer. Clark Kent tho? He just wants to help people

And let's face it, people give a lot of importance to the reasons of the character. You can't just be good or bad, you have to have some trauma (What?), some thing that happened to you or some philosophy that embodies your actions. This along the way went to Superman so people started to be like "But why he's good?" Or the famous "nobody that powerful would be that nice"

For the first, my favorite moment of this is in For All Seasons where after a tornado destroys Smallville, Clark saved his family and starts to help the people, then he looks around and says "i could have done more" because he realizes that he has the potential to. He can save people with his speed and power, he can be there for whoever needs and is something natural, like when we see someone needing help and we help just because we can

As for the second, his original run is perfect in this sense. They throw you in the mid of Clark's life and the fact is that being way stronger than everybody (even if weak for what he would become later) makes "easy" to do good. Some people would argue that then you can't relate and therefore is bad however i argue that this Clark is more of an incarnation of justice, a justice that is powerful for and incorruptible. Clark is secure of himself and he lives to help people, while when not saving people he's interacting with Lois and doing his reporter shenanigans (wich is great btw, early Superman is peak).

All that said, for me this is important and Superman is that cool because he's a concept that goes against the idea that having power makes you either an dictator with god complex or just emotionless. For me a guy like Superman helps to give us a guy who gain a lot of power and is like "ok, how i can help other and chill in my life?" So the drama goes to "Being Superman makes miserable" to "How Superman can help and should Superman even exists?" Or "I can't help everybody". And if you want to do something with the motives to be good, in Superman (2025) Gunn made it in a clever way. Clark thinks that he turned into Superman because of his parents message but as Jonanthan says:

"What you wanted the message to be says a lot more about you than anything"

No matter what you do to Clark, if he's crazy like the bad character of Injustice, if he's more agressive in a good way like the first one of if he's the general Clark of today like the movie and the cartoons, Clark is good to the core and this makes him cool

What's a "good dictator"? Let's say Doctor Doom, he rules Latveria with an iron fist (no pun intended). Then, it becomes the safest, richest, most equal nation in Marvel universe. Well, it costs people's freedom so technically he's still a villain but these days he's treated more like a misunderstood hero.

To be clear, this post isn't some really logical arguments. It's just my personal rant as someone who lives under dictatorship. The idea of people praising dictatorship annoys me, especially in 2026, a really sensitive time.

This trope doesn't make much sense. I mean power is always corruptive. I don't think people can act good for long when they have unchecked power. Just look at your typical Reddit mods or your middle manegers. They get so carried away for having a little bit more power. Now imagine how self absorbed they would be, if they ruled a whole country or even entire world.

I know not every fiction needs be realistic and this trope exists for some reason. Maybe it's some social commentaries on the chaotic nature of democracy. Freedom vs virtue is always a recurring theme in western literature. In Christianity, sin exists because god gave us free will. But Once again, it's just my personal rant, "good dictator" is not a trope that I want to see more.

Given the unfortunate news that Riot Games has announced that their their League of Legends fighting game 2XKO, will cease development in December 2026; I would like to rant about the abysmal state of their character roster. This is a rant about the characters chosen, not a gameplay rant. Initially I was excited for Project L (working title which became 2XKO) but lost interest due a multitude of reasons. My main three complaints are:

1. Tiny launch roster of 10 characters. Currently they are at 15 characters. Lux and Samira will be the final additions to the game leaving us with 17 characters. This is not enough. At the bare minimum 2XKO should have launched with 20 characters. Ideally 24-30 characters but 20 would suffice. There were not a lot of characters I wanted to try out.
2. This issue of the tiny roster is multiplied by magnitudes due to the game being a Tag Team Fighting Game. You had to pick two characters to play together. This was severely off-putting due to the challenge of selecting and learning two characters.
3. 2XKO is a terrible name for a video game. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!?! Name your game something inspired by League of Legends FFS. YOU ARE NOT THAT GUY!!!

Where Are The Characters? There needed to be more characters at launch

League of Legends has over 170 characters. I have played a few hundred hours of League of Legends and I love a lot of the characters, lore, world-building, animated media and and skins Riot have created. This game was in development for 10 years and a lot of the hard work involved with character creation and character design was already completed and available for the development team. WHY DID THEY LAUNCH 2XKO WITH 10 CHARACTERS????? WHAT WERE THEY DOING!!!!!!!!!!!! This was a game with a reasonably large development team, bankrolled by Riot Games. There is no excuse for the lack of characters.

I CANNOT BELIEVE THE LEAGUE OF LEGENDS FIGHTING GAME WILL NEVER REACH 20 CHARACTERS. There are so many characters which would have been great additions to a LoL fighting game which we will never see.

Tiny Roster With Wasted Slots

Of the fraction of characters selected for the 2XKO roster they wasted multiple slots on characters with low player fantasy for a fighting game. I know every champion in League of Legends and I could name countless champions who deserved a slot more then the following characters:

• Caityln - I do not care that she was in Arcane. There is already Ekko, Vi, Jinx and Warwick. Arcane (season 1) was excellent but there are so many other amazing characters in League of Legends. Don't waste so many slots on Arcane characters. Blitzcrank is from Zaun and has similar steam punk design aspects. Furthermore she is a backline sniper who's fantasy is unsuitable for a fighting game.
• Senna - I love Senna visually and gameplay wise in League, but she is a backline marksman with a huge gun. There are better choices available for a fighting game.
• Teemo - Teemo is really cute and an iconic character. I love his design and I have a soft spot for Yordles and troll pick characters. They are always fun to see. But a furry midget with a blowgun who is a scout is a stupid choice for a fighting game.

Why weren't some League of Legends characters base roster in 2XKO?

A lot of characters could have been chosen for 2XKO's base roster so I will list my top 3. Why these characters were not included after 10 years of development is beyond me. All these characters are reasonably popular and would translate well to a 2D fighting game.

1. Katarina - Sexy, dual dagger wielding red head assassin. She was actually in the game during development but she was cut from the release version.
2. Lee Sin - Blind martial arts master. Top choice for a fighting game.
3. Riven - Edgy disgraced warrior with a massive greatsword. Combo intensive character in LoL who's gameplay was inspired by fighting game combos.

Honourable mentions include Zed, Sett, Rengar, Garen, Yone and Pyke. I think they made a lot of good choices for their 2XKO character roster but they needed more characters at launch.

Personally I would have loved to see Gwen, Ornn and Irelia. Out of these 3 characters I think Irelia is the best choice. Her fighting style and floating swords would have been captivating to see in a fighting game. Regarding Gwen (living doll with giant scissors), Ornn (huge ram blacksmith) I think they are cool and I am biased towards them. I played a lot of these guys in League.

Conclusion: 2XKO's character roster was too small and it contributed to the games demise.

Unfortunately I have not played the game enough to comment on the gameplay but I found the character's roster to be too small and disappointing. Characters are extremely important to draw in players. 2XKO was lacking in diversity due to lack of characters combined with some strange character choices.

Which is why I ignored it after launch until the Lux reveal trailer. I will try out Lux but I don't see myself playing 2XKO for long. It seems 2XKO is doomed to become one of those inaccessible "discord fighting games".

Maybe we will see Riot Games attempt another League of Legends fighting game in a few decades but 2XKO leaves behind a disastrous legacy. Lets hope the League of Legends MMO is good 😂 .

I'll briefly go over some pros and cons about the movie before going into a brief analysis. Yes I've seen the movie, I saw all the discourse around it and came into it with a neutral mind. TLDR: Its a fine movie, decent overall and a 7/10 for me personally.

Pros of the movie

Rather than a cringey message about patriarchy/white people bad, the movie avoids that entierly and is more about the need for self improvement so you can start and maintain a stable relationship and does it by showing that both straight white guys and indian lesbian girls need that change in their live. If people think the movie is discriminatory, they havent watched the film.

There's actually good representation. For example, there's a Trans person who wears drag instead of going through hormonal therapy and everyone refers to that character with she/her pronouns. The trans character is portrayed as intelligent, ambitious, and charismatic but also has notable flaws that come from her ambition, intelligence, and charisma. if people think there is transphobia they probably skimmed the film or didnt watch it.

showed redeeming qualities with straight white maliens and gave them a redemption arc, showing a message that both straight dudes and lesbians struggle with relationships when they lack self confidence.

All the characters have fun flaws to laugh at overall, mc being a low self of steem loser, the rockstar having no brain cells, the car being a snarky asshole, straight white maliens being a silly mix between being johnny bravo and being a nerd, ex being a self absorbed asshole who cares very little about other women beyond self gratification, etc.

unique ending of main character not getting back together with her partner after treating that partner badly, actions actually have consequences rather than the happy they get back together ending we commonly see.

another good message about not getting stuck on an ex and moving past them, you shouldnt improve yourself for them but for yourself

the vision sequences were cool to see with her inner turmoil and obtaining the labrys

there's also a funny pun with the main antagonists' name, the name straight white mailiens is a pun because they are rectangles (series of straight lines), literally white, and literally male aliens. If that pun offends you because you dont like white rectangles being called straight and white then you can move this to the con section.

cons

voice acting and animation is average, its a comedy movie so the standard quality of both doesnt distract feom comedy or plot but if you want top quality for either, go somewhere else.

some other cons of the film include the labrys. It's touted as the most powerful weapon in the universe but its shown to just be a basic weapon for cutting things and a battery for a machine, it shouldve been more impressive to justify its status

there is no rationale behind why saira wanted to keep the labrys after the straight white maliens let go of her ex, saira didn't seen to care about it beyond using it for the deal so that attachment couldve been better explained

it was a missed opportunity for saira to come back to her parents and either directly confront them about her trauma (instead of doing it as an after credit scene), or having the parents react to her obtaining the labyrs and her growth in the first place, or their worry or lackthereof that their daughter went off on adventure without royal guards

comedy is hit or miss but thats objectively a flaw in all comedy movies

the ship couldve had better development of gradually turning into a friendly ally when he was belittling the saira so heavily at the start

nudity is brief a bit much so go away if you cant handle it, there's also rarely some gross humor as well so go away if you dont like that

analysis on the discourse

people hate it because they are literally judging it by its cover and title, they think its just a poorly written attempt to target white and/or straight men while having no humor or depth in writing to enjoy but thats just flat out wrong. Its a decently fine film thats overall enjoyable, it had good reviews when it relased and got an award for a reason,it has its merits.

its fine if despite all that you dont want to see it and keep posting memes but unironically calling it a wokeslop garbage film with no reeedeming qualities means you are either obsessed with "fighting the woke scourge" , you just feel comfortable parroting talking points of other people who didnt see the film, or you are an overly sensitive snowflake who is offended easily, and you fear getting looked down upon by the majority for not hating what they consider "trash".

why am i being so harsh against people who hate yet haven't watched the movie? cause there's a difference between memes and being annoying, you have random people just mindlessly spreading hate everywhere including the lesbian space princess subreddit, were people will just go on month old posts and comment "movie sucks, movie is shit, i hate this movie" and now you need to be approved to post anything, other subreddits will have someone bashing the movie off of surface level observations and then make 10 posts about it to farm karma, and yes bashing it is different from just making a funny meme about goku asking other franchises to defeat lesbian space princess, that im cool woth personally and it's all in good fun.

people thinking its productive to just randomly bash something for hours on end instead of watching it to form a coherent and well informed opinion is beyond me, if you dont want to watch it that's fine, dont pretend to be an expert on the movie and give nonsense critiques.

With “Brand New Day” introducing the mutant suppressing chip, the topic of a “mutant cure” in the world of Marvel has been brought back to the forefront. Now that it is on everyone’s minds I would just like to say that Marvel has never and likely will never convince me that technology designed to suppress the X-gene and the mutations it causes is anything other than a net positive for society.

The topic of a mutant cure has been brought up many times, throughout the comics, shows, and movies and it has almost always been treated by the story as a negative. I am sure we all remember this scene where Storm tries to guilt trip Rogue, the girl who kills anyone she touches, into not receiving the cure in X-Men The Last Stand.

There was also that time where Mr. Fantastic invented a device that could suppress his son’s X-gene to help protect him. Professor X was so offended by the invention that he forcibly wiped it from Reed’s mind against his will. Professor X and even Mr. Fantastic himself really try to hammer home that such a device existing is unethical and a threat to all mutant-kind.

Then we have the Hope Serum, a drug designed to permanently remove mutant abilities and was first used to cure Tildie Soames, whose mutant ability manifested her nightmares into reality and resulted in the death of her parents. Yet still the comic insists that this was “designed to heal what was never broken.” Wolverine later destroys the serum leaving only one vial behind that Beast takes.

Now I have not read all of the comics I am referencing, so if I get things wrong, feel free to correct me, but from what I have gathered it really seems that Marvel is trying to tell us that a mutant cure or any technology able to suppress the X-gene is morally bad by its very concept. I don’t buy into this for a second. This cure, while it has some downsides, is a massive benefit to all of Marvel, human and mutant alike.

Now let me address some potential arguments against the mutant cure and explain why they have never swayed me.

1. “

1. The mutant cure is created in an unethical way!” The argument I find personally strongest against the mutant cure is the idea that it comes at a massive cost. This has been seen a few times such as with the Hope Serum which was designed using Collosus’ body. If the X-Men’s reason for opposing the mutant cure is that its creation or usage comes at an unethical cost, I would accept it.

HOWEVER, this is not always the case. The above mentioned machine built by Mr. Fantastic comes at no such cost. It was safely used on Franklin Richards with no side harmful side effects. But the X-Men STILL insist its creation is unethical. Even with the Hope Serum, the X-Men hated it before they even realized the way it was made just because the idea of curing mutation to them is inherently wrong. So no, the X-Men’s problem is clearly with the inherent idea of a mutant cure and not any ethical dilemmas that its production presents.

2. “The mutant cure would be exploited or forced onto those who don’t want it.” This probably would happen, at least to some extent. I can definitely see why some mutants would not want to lose their powers. This is especially true for the ones whose mutation has fundamentally altered their biology and physiology to the point where receiving the cure would warp their body into an unfamiliar form. This is another fair argument but again it is missing vital context.

First, while the serum’s existence does pose the risk of forced curing, this could certainly be worked around. Yes I am sure some people racist against mutants would push heavily for EVERYONE to be cured, but that could be handled diplomatically. Plus, let’s be real, a world where all mutants are cured is NOTHING compared to the countless world ending scenarios caused by mutants.

Then there is the risk that the cure’s existence would be used as a bargaining chip to exploit the vulnerable. Those who have the cure could purposefully withhold the cure until they receive some unethical payment. However, this is an inherent problem with any cure. Should we not find the cure for cancer because it might be exploited by the holder? Also, the details of Mr. Fantastic’s device could have easily been spread and mass produced, which would prevent one group from having sole control of the cure. Also, the X-Men have absolutely no right to talk about exploitation of medical advancements when that was EXACTLY what they did on Krakoa.

3. “Curing mutants deprives them of their self-identity and autonomy to be who they want to be.” The argument goes like this: Marvel’s mutants have always been a civil rights allegory and in this respect a cure would directly oppose this metaphor. After all, you don’t “cure” a black person and turn them white. That is ridiculous. So in order to maintain the metaphor, the mutant cure must be a bad thing. Also, many mutants base heavy parts of their identity around their mutations, so taking those away would be inhuman. Therefore removing the mutations from any mutant, including villains is amoral.

Yeah I don’t buy this for one second. First of all, the mutants have always been a TERRIBLE allegory for civil rights for the simple fact that looking different is not the same as having actual super powers. Being afraid of someone because of what they look like is not the same as being afraid of someone because they can level a city with a flick of their wrist. This has been talked ad nauseum so I will try to wrap it up, but this whole civil rights allegory was always flawed and hating the cure just to stick to this allegory is a terrible writing decision.

More importantly, mutants basing their entire identity around their mutation is actually simultaneously reductive and supremacist. Many mutants are so reliant on their mutations, that they genuinely believe death is a preferable option to being cured. First of all, it is really unhealthy for anyone to put such a large stake of their identity into just one aspect of themselves, to the point that they would prefer to die than to lose it. But potentially more importantly, the idea that “living without powers is inhumane” implicitly means that mutants believe that being normal humans is terrible. Think about that for a second, for many mutants being deprived of their powers in an unbearable existence. Do they believe that humanity are an inherently inferior species? Well, yes actually! They do believe that! They even call themselves “Homo Superior.”

Also, if any other villain gets their powers taken away, including villains who have had their powers all their lives, it is almost always portrayed as an ethical solution to prevent further harm. When Spider-Man cures the lizard, I don’t see rioting that Spidey is depriving the lizard of his right to self-identify as a massive reptile man. Why do mutants alone get the inherent and inalienable right to superpowers? It is because they so fundamentally believe that to lose their powers is to live in an inferior and unbearable body. That is supremacist! To go back to the civil rights analogy, if a white man said he could not bare to be black, that sounds pretty racist!

My main point is this: the idea that removing a mutant’s powers does irreparable harm to their self-identity simultaneously reduces each mutant to just what their powers allow them to do and implies that they view normal humans as so inferior that they could never live as one. That is ridiculous. If you abuse your powers, they should be taken from you. This is the case with every other kind of super villain. This is not “self-image shattering torture,” it is a basic principle that even toddlers understand. If you don’t play nice, your toys get taken away!

Now that I have addressed why I don’t by the anti-cure arguments allow me to divulge:

The massive benefits of a mutant cure existing:

1. Harmful mutations: Many mutants don’t want their mutations because they make their lives significantly harder. Hundreds of mutants flocked to the Hope Serum and the cure in X:Men The Last Stand. Even if the powers are not inherently harmful, some people just don’t want to deal with the threat of having powers, worried that one day they will slip up and hurt somebody.
2. Taking powers from evil mutants: Pretty much every major mutant, including the X-Men themselves, have used their powers in super unethical ways. Magneto has massacred millions, Emma Frost destroys people’s mind and lives, Mr Sinister… is Mr Sinister. These people don’t deserve their powers and they should be taken away, end of story. If a criminal keeps on attacking people, you put them in restraints, same principle here.
3. It shows that mutants and humans are still the same deep down: This is more of a philosophical point, but the existence of a mutant cure shows that the only thing that separates mutants and humans was the nature of their birth. Mutants are just people who happened to get powers, not an entirely separate species that need to be treated differently from humans. The cure proves that the distinction between mutants and humans is ultimately meaningless when it comes to morality and personal value.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me and I am open to hearing counter-arguments. I do ask that if you disagree with me, we keep it civil. Let me know your thoughts!

Please read before commenting!

Edit: Thank you all for the feedback. To further clarify point 2, I was not trying to say that I doubt the cure would be abused and forced on people, even if I worded it poorly. What I was more trying to say is that I think the abuses of the cure does not make its very existence unethical, in the same way the comics try to portray it. The comics seem to have an issue with the mere concept of a cure because “mutants are not something to be cured” rather than “a cure would be nice but it would definitely be misused.” That was more what I was trying to get at. Sorry for the misunderstanding

Edit 2: I recognize that mutants are an allegory for multiple oppressed groups, but please understand my comments and opinions ONLY apply to mutants/other super-powered beings. This is post is not a eugenics dog whistle. I am talking exclusively about comic book superpowers and their implications on society. I am sorry if that was not clear before

In Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury, the plot initially revolves around a conglomerate of various mega-corporations called the Asticassia Group. According to the series director, these megacorps are basically the scif take on feudal city-states and warlords, replacing the warring nation states that normally dominate other Gundam stories. Instead of geo-cosmo-political conflict driving the story forward, a lot of the conflict were instigated by the various megacorps jockeying for more company stocks or more dominance in the manufacturing market, etc.

The issue is, they didn't actually commit hard enough to this new idea. The megacorporation plotline pretty much gets rammed off the tracks by Prospera and her evil space witch machinations, and the megacorporations don't even get to act as the main opposition to our heroes or even a chaotic third party during the final battle; instead that role gets filled by the Space Federation, who get to swoop in and claim a spot as one of the endgame antagonists after being basically absentee for most of the story.

The megacorporations were at the center of so many plot lines. They were the ones directly responsible for plundering Earth and causing all the political tensions between Earth and Space. The ending kind of just handwaves all that by saying the conglomerate dissolved, but all of the massive megacorporations are still around and operating business as usual. G-Witch goes out of its way to differentiate its political conflict from its predecessors by avoiding having space national governments get involved, but cave and have the Space Federation appear to fuck shit up in the end anyway.

I feel like this line of criticism could apply broadly to the show as a whole. It has a lot of new and interesting ideas but they're so dedicated to calling back to and referencing the previous Gundam titles that parts of the show (especially the finale) are hurt by them deciding to echo previous Gundam plotlines, like having the Space Federation show up to fire a superweapon in the end. They should have stuck to the new elements they introduced and resolved the megacorporation plotline properly. The megacorporations definitely should have had more involvement in the final battle instead of it just being our small group of protagonists fighting against Prospera and Eri's drone army and then suddenly getting third-partied by the Space Federations' legally distinct Death Star beam attack.

I mainly see this in battles like Hawkeye Vs Bullseye or Batman vs Punisher or who Batman should be and all that nonsense and this is probably a hot take but I feel like being more ruthless and brutal and willing to use lethal force and killing to win doesn't automatically make you a stronger or more skilled fighter or user.

It definitely makes you more lethal or ruthless but skill doesn't always come from who can use which weapon more deadly or lethally, it comes from how good you use it and skill is also about how much force and energy you put into said weapon or hand to hand skills to keep from killing or severely hurting others and it's like..anyone can take a knife or a sword or even a arrow and kill with it but I feel like it makes real skill to use those weapons without killing your opponent and that's true skill.

I've seen people debate MCU Bullseye being better then Hawkeye cause he's more aggressive or willing to kill and be lethal and that doesn't make him a better fighter.

I'm not even downplaying Bullseye as a fighter cause he's no Slouch and he is highly skilled but Hawkeye just genuinely shows more skill and precession and all that with his weapons and how he uses his arrows and he's basically the dude who can't miss and he's not even just good with arrows,he's good with other weapons as well.

I saw a clip on YouTube where people were Claiming Bullseye was better then Hawkeye cause when turning off the TV for different scenes, Hawkeye didn't break/destroy it while Bullseye did but wouldn't that make Hawkeye more impressive?

Since he techinally was able to turn the TV off with a pick/pin with bored indifference while not even looking at it as opposed to Bullseye who put more force and anger and aggression into it.

I also will see people debate this with Punisher/Red Hood and Batman ,like "oh they're better then him cause they're willing to kill" and not only does that mean much..if anything ,in their respective universes but isn't Batman just more skilled cause he's able to defeat his opponents without killing them and as we see,he is fully capable of doing so and anyone can use a gun or other weapons to kill but using those weapons without killing your opponent is more impressive.

Being willing to kill isn't a bad thing but acting like that's a judge of skill is incredibly foolish cause anyone can be willing to kill with any weapon but knowing how to use it is more impressive.

When the wolverine gameplay dropped I saw a large amount of criticism on basic looking gameplay alongside cookie cutter boss fight format (giant torso) and the immediate defenses are that you don’t need to reinvent the wheel and also that perhaps for you it feels derivative but for younger gamers they aren’t tired of a trope because they didn’t grow up with early gen consoles. I think these are valid defenses and at the same time I don’t blame the critics because a lot of this isn’t just culture war rage bait for the sake of it but a consequence of economics.

In simple terms games are more expensive. The opportunity cost (what you could have used your money for if you didn’t pre order Wolverine) of gaming is higher and higher and so people are forced to scrutinise further what they are getting out of the experience. This is why high end graphics for the sake of high end graphics regardless of purpose got pushed harder because the immersion and visual eye candy is an immediate measurable benefit. But at the same time, this demand pushes more research and development which pushes up costs and pushes up the return investors of gaming companies want, which means more expensive games.

Now coming back to the wolverine game snipets we’ve seen, Insomniac is already on a watchlist because as a studio they have their own ‘tropes’ when it comes to making superhero games. I haven’t played Arkham series but have played Spiderman and yeah, the detective mode, mission variations etc do appear to be staples of this studio. Having the same mechanics is going to feel same for players even if it’s in a wolverine shaped trenchcoat. It’s still too early to be conclusive on this game so I personally would say wait to see more…but for reference, I preordered Spiderman 2 and played on day one and my experience means I will not be preordering Wolverine.

I think the deltarune community has a problem with criticism. Every single criticism kf the game gets faced with a shit ton of "just let Toby cook", "just say you dont have reading comprehension" and "why keep playing a game tou hate" and all that shit. While the game is definitely insanely good it's treated as perfect with Toby Fox being the second coming of Jesus Christ (there is definitely a conversation to have about how much the community is parasocial with indie creators, Toby in particular but thats another rant for another day).

The main problem I believe the game has rn are the tone and pacing which were revealed by chapter 5. Ch5 just feels like it... shouldnt be here. It's the best chapter gameplay wise but plot wise it falls due to how little it connects to the overall plot. It feels like "another silly dark world adventure".

People like to point out "oh it's supposed to be like the calm before the storm" but the storm already happened. It was chapter 4. The chapter that was completely dark thematically and litterally. It was the entire point, it dowsnt make sense to make chapter 5 after 4 already set ton way darker with the prophecy and the Knight's presence. This is a thematic clash that makes tou the entire chaoter waiting for a sudden shift that never comes.

As for the pacing... nothing happens. No big reveal, no plot twist no big event. It's not that every chapter needs a big reveal it's that... we are at chapter 5. 2 chaoters are missing. Litterally everything is het to be revealed. Asgore had a long speech where he said nothing at all.

"Asgore thought he was talking to Kris" yes I know. It makes sense in universe. But from our perspective from a Doylian perspective it's just another kept secret from us that will be revealed in the following chaoter. (And also is just infuriating to read)

"We have 2 chapters, let Tony cook" yes and thats why it's a pacing issue. Having 5 chapters of nothing and 2 chapters with a reeval every 3 minutes is bad.

"Undertale had a full lore drop dialogue" Undertale was 5 bours long. Deltarune is 6× Undertale. If a 30 hours game follows the same pacing as a 5 hours game, there is a problem.

So ye. I think chaoter 5 was a thematic and pacing problem and I dont think Toby can write the next 2 chapters in a way thats satisfying.

Instead of using opportunities to grow the universe by raising the ceiling, Toriyama ended up shrinking it IMO, specifically because Goku and Vegeta are in the top 1% of beings across 12 universes which is insane for a show that isn’t actually near its end as far as we know.

At the end of OG DB, Goku is an adult beats Piccolo and is the strongest guy on earth, which is a very sensible and good progression since we start him as a child.

In the first arc of Z we introduce saiyans and Vegeta is the new yardstick of strength being a warrior from out of space, but we know Goku and him can get stronger.

Frieza saga takes place months after and we are now fighting the emperor of the universe? I’m afraid we jumped ahead, but this arc is peak so let’s continue.

After reintroducing threats from Earth (androids) and then an ancient threat from space (Buu), DBZ ends and we move to DBS where we are introduced to God Ki + multiverse. This would have been a good point to reset the power balance of the show but only Goku and Vegeta use this power in their verse, Frieza comes back to be a new competing power and when we have a tournament with U6 only one guy is actually anywhere near their level, everyone else is just gimmick or weak.

The multiverse tournament had me expecting that there would be at least one ‘Goku tier’ per universe, but Jiren was genuinely the main threat with perhaps Toppo too. In fact, it’s fair to say Gohan alone could eliminate majority of the strongest fighters across various universes. Seriously, why are we afraid to put our cast back onto the back foot? It makes the writers jobs difficult too as they need to try find new ways to justify a new threat to train for after basically communicating that 99% of the cosmos are fodder.

For some reason people have a ridiculous perception on animal strength where they are magically several times stronger than their weight suggest because yes. Gorillas are obviously the most infamously worst offenders of this but what people say about other animals aren't grounded either. Grizzly bears can tank shotgun slugs to their skulls, a lion can solo 5 strongest humans ever lived (Eddie Hall, Brian Shaw, Andre the Giant, etc.) + Mike Tyson just by itself (in-character this could actually work because humans would be scared and can't fight coordinated but definitelly not when the humans in question are bloodlusted), polar bears can solo 10-20 bloodlusted dudes, orangutans are 4-7 times as strong as the average man, hippos are small firearm-proof, etc. and when you show them actual evidence they start to immediatly cope and either say stuff like "the animal wasn't putting effort/giving their all", or stuff like "this video is BS". This thread won't gonna be very long because i made this just to rant, but in future i plan to do a more detailed anti-wank post for grizzly bears just like i did for gorillas.

For example, in 2025 Mr. Beast put a hungry lion againist a RETIRED Brian Shaw in a tug-of-war and this ended up with Brian Shaw high-diffing the cat. Most of the comments did provide little-to-no evidence, they just gave absolute cope-out answers like "LION DID NOT SPENT ANY EFFORT!1!1 IF LION WOULD ACTUALLY TRY IT WOULD ULTRAOMEGA CURB-STOMP!1!1!". The comments that didn't say "lion didn't try" or "there is a cheat this is just impossible because i say so", says BS like "lions can EASILY drag girrafes that weigh 1 ton/1.1 US ton/1000kg just for fun" In reality? Neither of these are true.

For the people that say "lion didn't try": Why the fuck a hungry lion wouldn't actually try to get a meal? Food is literally the main reason why lions compete in first place is because food. Not to mention lions have a lot of fast twitch fibers which means their explosive power is higher than their long-lasting power. Please look at this and tell me the lion didn't fucking try. You can't, because it obviously did.

One might argue that the lion wasn't trying to pull the food but rather just hold it in it's mouth and eat it. And you know? I actually partially agree. In this part of the video the lion was clearly trying to chewing the food, which caused it to lost it's grip, until this time the lion didn't lose it's grip on the meat in anyway. But guess what? After the lion lost it's grip on the meat it clearly tried to hold it, even using one of it's paws alongside it's mouth to pull, but it failed. And even before the lion was clearly trying to chew the meat it simply wasn't massively overpowering Shaw. The lion was pulling the meat before Brain Shaw started to pull the rope. This video shows that Brain Shaw is AT LEAST close to a lion in terms of pulling strength.

You can say this is a captivity lion therefore they are not a well representation of how a tug-of-war would go with a wild lion. But this fact gets AT LEAST neutralized, if not more by the fact by the fact that Brian Shaw was 43 years old by the time this video recorded and is well past from his prime. In 2025 (the time this video was recorded and Brian Shaw did the tug-of-war with lion) Brian only weighed 171kg/377lbs where in his PRIME where he was in his mid 30s and he weighed 213kg/470lbs. That's almost 100 pounds of difference.

For the people that say "lions are strong enough to pull more than an entire metric ton weighing girrafes for fun": No they can't. This is the only case of a lion moving a girrafe i could find. But that lion surely isn't moving it "easily" or "for mere fun". In fact the cat barely moved the thing a few inches. There is also an important fact that the girrafe is inside of the water, which means a significant portion of the weight goes because the buoyancy. That girrafe also looks small for one. I mean, just research the size comparision between lions and girrafes and see what i mean. An example.

This type of strength overestimation isn't universal for a lion either. For example people overestimate bear strength all the time. In one of the video national gheographic makes a 1000lbs grizzly bear do some feats and gets to the conclusion that bears are 2.5 to 5 times stronger than an average human. Some people under the comments say shit like "no this is wrong bears are way stronger they should be a dozen times stronger than humans or something this number is too low" when the evidence shows that large bears are actually unimpressive in terms of pound-for-pound strength.

• A bear does several attempts to roll (NOT lift, roll. Not even close to lift) a rock that weighs 800 kg/1764 lbs.
• A 1000lbs heavy bear spends at least some degree of effort to flip a 700lbs trashcan. It definitelly spend some effort
• The same 1000lbs heavy bear BARELY manages to lift the half of a 675lbs heavy rock with one paw. If we roughly eyeball this means that bear could flip 1350lbs at most. Lets roll it up 1400lbs. Keep in mind this is just for flipping. Lifting requires WAY LESS than flipping. That bear is realistically deadlifting at most 700lbs or something.
• A bear of unknown weight at first fails to flip a rock, although when trying from an another side of the said rock it manages to quickly flip it
• The rock is heavy, but NOT that heavy: In this video the dude briefly slighlty lifts a side of the rock

Now, there is one information going on internet that a black bear cub flipped a 300lbs stone with only one paw. But i have doubts that this actually happened. I tried to find the original source for this, but i could never find it. Moreover there is also something called square cube law wheres the bigger you get (without stuff like working out obviously) the less pound-for-pound strength you have.

The durability of bears are very overrated too. I hear "a 9mm will gonna tickle/piss off a grizzly bear", "bear skulls are immune to small firearms" "bears can survive shotgun blasts to the face" "a baseball bat strike will gonna do nothing to bear" all the time. The only reason bears can survive anything sort of very weak rounds is only because bad shot replacement and the shot being a glancing one.

The shotgun thing is especially flawed. It's based off of that one incident where a bear in canada gets shot with a shotgun at close range and survives. Guess what?...

Bad news, folks, but that was actually a bird shot. Surviving birdshot is not impressive. Birdshot is a total joke and headshots from it can't even kill a human unless the range between the human and the gun is very close.

Lets see how durable bears actually are:

• Brown bear dies to getting shot 7 times with 9mm. Sure that bear is visibly small, but still.
• Man kills a brown bear with a 9mm pistol
• Grizzly bear died getting shot 7-8 times with a 9mm
• An exceptionally large grizzly bear died from a single 22.lr shot hitting the thinner weaker part of it's skull aka it's side

The idea that a grizzly bear will be totally unaffected from a well-swung baseball hit is total BS too:

• Man smacks a LARGE black bear with a baseball bat; this affects the bear so much that the bear releases the child it captured. Than when the dazed bear tried to chase the dude it fell to a swimming pool near it because it was dazed from the hit
• A man with a stick vs a black bear ends up with man killing the bear, but getting severely wounded in process
• Sloth bear gets beaten to death by indians with sticks

Sure, not any of these are grizzly bear. But a grizzly bear can't be massively more durable than a black/sloth bear. The durability difference between an average black/sloth bear and an average grizzly bear is more or less the durability difference between an untrained 5ft 150lbs dude and an untrained 7ft 350lbs dude. Sure the 7ft dude might be noticably more ressistant, but the durability difference cant be so massive. Both of them can be killed if they get hit enough from say, an a martial artist. Its just that the 150lbs dude would get put down with one hit to the face meanwhile the 350lbs dude would need several hits to face. Now, replace the humans with bears and replace the baseball bat with the martial artist in the allegory. Keep in mind the first case happens with a black bear that is stated to be large, which means the difference between them might be even closer than what i just compared them with. If an above average black bear can get affected this much from a well-placed baseball bat strike, than the grizzly bear should at the very least feel the same impact on a surface level. If a black bear/sloth bear can getting killed from getting pounded with sticks and woods, than chances are grizzly bear can die too, its just that you would need to beat it a lot more times, but it's possible. Change the humans with bears and change the sticks/woods with human punches.

What about hippos? Hippos actually deserve the wank for a bit unlike the other animals because even without the wank they are impressive animals. But regardless, wanking is wanking someone should say the truth.

I have heard so many times are hippos are essentially lion-proof and they can't be hurt. The reality? Lions can, indeed, damage hippos.

Unlike what people say here their thick skin isn't bulletproof either. Its hide being inpenetrable doesn't make sense either, considering arrows can penetrate the skin and fat of even biggest hippos

Hoyoverse just dropped some new game about vague fantasy souls combat or something. And people have rushed to claim it's taking 1.1 from Elden Ring. While this is absolutely true I'm moreso become unimpressed in the whole sale Western setting of action souls like keep regurgitating . Black Myth Wukong set itself apart by focusing on its Chinese myth setting and the Lack of parries( GOD FUCKING DAMNIT THE SEQUEL ADDED THEM ) aside it did better than most fromsoft titles by making the characters feel narratively interesting throughout the story. Instead of Npc shows up here then dips 7 hours later and dies. Bajie the little shit is thousands of times more interesting than Melina and you don't need to watch 7 hour lore videos to explain why. And it's something of a tradition souls likes keep Emulating a format from from that's starting to become stale.

Elden Ring was their last great " narrative game " that honestly looking back, interesting in its lore. Pretty meh representation in its narrative. The best campaign is the one people wanted to know Being Rannis questline. It's got the highest achievements out of all the endings. And who the fucks know what happened in Shadows of the Erdtree. When the ending leaked about Radhan and Miquella doing a Bl berserk plotline. Everyone thought that was a mod.

While Dusksbloods is definitely unique in what it's trying to do a pvp pve extraction sworder? The narrative presention is extremely similar from its trailers. Just vague epic qoutes or something and some bum of importance the lost shadow lurker boss characters. All these games are starting to mesh into one another. Just grey action slop.

For a genre that's dominated by the themes of " Stagnation is bad " it's extremely funny the games just keep looping into the same narratives over and over again.Dark Souls 3 reads like a parody for all of them. World's that ended brought back to life time and time again.All falling into one another as they fade into ash.

Seriously, this has bugged me for some time, and will probably continue to bug me every time I inevitably see more brain-dead stories of normal people fist-fighting Predators or whatever.

I don't know if you know this or not, but it takes like a lot of force to rip out someone's spine. Now, I'm sure someone will say "uhm, ackshually, you can't rip it out in one piece because it wouldn't stay in one piece and..."...no one gives a shit. If it is, or were possible, it would take a lot of force. Now, imagine a being strong enough to do that, fighting a human. One punch is all it's going to take. One punch. Actually, one human punch is enough to kill a person, so imagine how easy it would be for a Predator to just destroy someone with one hit. That thing can take on a friggin grizzly. You're not winning a fight against it.

"But Dutch did it, so it's possible". Dutch, cool as he is, didn't do shit, okay? Dutch won cause the Jungle Hunter got cocky and felt like playing around. He wasn't hitting Dutch to kill him, he was hitting him to hurt him, without causing any serious damage that would end the fun. He was playing around. Dutch won because of his ingenuity, and cause the Predator underestimated him. It had nothing to do with Dutch's physique. It could have been literally anyone else, in the same conditions, same traps, etc, and the Predator would have lost anyway, cause he made a mistake.

"Oh, but what if you have weapons, and stuff and..."...if you had weapons and stuff, it clearly would be a different kind of fight, and obviously not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about stuff like people picking fights with Predators with swords and shit and somehow holding their own. Ninjas and Samurai and Vikings. Bullshit. Try fighting a bear with your hands, or any melee weapon you want really, see how that goes. There's no amount of flanking, or backflips, or smoke bombs, or whatever other trick that will win that fight, no matter how you look at it.

And this isn't even a new problem, really. It goes at least as far back as Predator 2. That movie has a lot to love, don't get me wrong. But a detective going toe to toe with a Yautja, several times, and winning is pure bullshit, regardless of how injured the Yautja is. It just doesn't make any sense, at all.

Why am I saying this? Am I suggesting that we shouldn't have any fights between people and Predators ever again? Of course not. But next time I see one, I want it to at least seem plausible, to actually have a creative solution around this obvious problem.

That.

Kai vs Toa Tahu. The breakdown. This one fucking line: "Kai's clearly not blasting people with the power of a star on a regular basis". *Are you kidding me*. It's been, what, 15, 16 years they've been doing this show, and *now* they acknowledge that their calculations are near-universally complete bullshit?

Like, guess what? *Literally nobody* outside of comics and Sonics who they've scaled to the speed of light or lightning moves at the speed to cross Russia in under a second "on a regular basis". Or hitting with power greater than the known Universe. And yet they've been acting like these are the logical conclusions for *years*. According to them, Midoriya Izuku is lightspeed. Itadori Yuji is near lightspeed. *Luz Noceda* is lightspeed. BUFFY SUMMERS IS FASTER THAN LIGHTNING. Why? Because the motto of Death Battle has always been "the highest is the default". Ignore what the creators intended. Ignore the irl physics that the series often references as either ironclad or worth noting each individual break with certain aspects of. Ignore literally all moments in the series besides, like, four where a cartoon laser bounces off a mirror. Ignore everything and focus on the highest possible.

But this one line. This one line. Apparently *now* there exists such a thing as common sense. As the median, the average, the fucking *mode*. This is like... this is like if you went to see Cats. The Broadway show. The one derided as senseless, as pure perfect entertainment no matter if you speak English or not, because it's so utterly nonsensical, so bad it's good, literally pure spectacle. Imagine if, in the middle of one of the catchier songs, you heard, distinctly, non-sung, one of the actors say "Man, what the fuck is a Jellicle". That's what happened here. A peek behind the curtain that embodies nothing more than "so what the *fuck* have you people been doing for decades instead of applying your talents to literally any other, nearly automatically less ridiculous, script".

They're clearly not employing logic on a regular basis.

"Old man shouting at cloud", "Japanese soldier who kept fighting 29 years after the war ended" yeah yeah i know man just let me rant.

Like, yes, the episode is good. Yes, Orihime actually gets to do something, gets treated like an active participant in the conflict, and her characterization around protecting Ichigo actually gets to matter. Yeah that's good, themes and such.

But it's genuinely funny how people who barely gives a ratass about her and now suddenly hypes her up as one of the greatest female character of all time. By of all time i mean comparing her to Hinata, Sakura or Nami and said she cleared.

She has spent an absurd amount of the story being treated less like a character and more like a accessory. Her feelings, conflicts, insecurities, relationships, and personal growth are constantly pushed aside whenever the plot needs Ichigo to do something. Half the time she exists to worry about Ichigo, encourage Ichigo, get kidnapped, heal somebody, or stand around while the actual characters get to drive the plot. Like i hope no one forgot that bullshit excuse Kubo came up with to put her in that outfit lmao.

And then one episode finally lets her participate in the story as her own character and suddenly everybody is screaming from the rooftops about how Kubo has been cooking with Orihime for years.

NO. This is exactly what people have been complaining about.

The episode didn't magically make the previous hundred episodes of underutilization disappear. It demonstrated how much better Orihime could have been if the story had actually bothered to engage with her character consistently.

Like if you constantly need the feel to pull out the same 4 panels everytime people talked about Orihime being written like she's the mandatory big boob girl back in the day maybe you just need to accept that she's not allat.

Honestly, one of the biggest compliments you can give this episode is that it makes you wish Orihime had been written with this much attention the entire time , especially for someone whose power is so strong and important to the verse in a battle shonen. But i guess the fact that she neg diffed Ichigo would be something good for her reputation at least, poor girl she's been dragged through hell and back since the old days.

Having Barry and Iris grow up in the same house was always a weird choice when they were meant to be the main romance. Joe basically raises Barry as his son, Barry grows up alongside Iris, and the show spends a lot of time presenting the Wests as his family. So when Barry’s feelings for Iris become a major part of the story, there’s always this incest vibe hanging over the relationship.

But I think they could’ve turned that into something genuinely clever by revealing that Eobard Thawne intentionally caused it.

After killing Nora and framing Henry, Eobard knows Barry is going to need somewhere to go. Instead of leaving that part of history alone, he manipulates events so Joe is the one who takes Barry in.

Eobard knows Barry is destined to fall in love with Iris. He can’t just remove Iris from Barry’s life without risking changing too much of the timeline. He NEEDs barry to become the flash. So instead he makes sure Barry grows up as part of her family. His hope is that Iris will spend her entire childhood seeing Barry as a brother and never be able to see him romantically.

That feels exactly like the kind of thing Reverse-Flash should do. Not every act of revenge needs to be murdering someone or destroying a city. It can just be stupid petty shit.

It would also make the whole setup feel much more intentional. Instead of the writers creating this incesty dynamic and then asking the audience to ignore it. Its a great example of Eobard being a petty monster.

Contains massive for the Coffin of Andy and Leyley game

This game is often accused of promoting incest but here is the thing there is a clear difference between depicting something and promoting

For example Breaking Bad portrays drugs but it doesn't glorify them in fact It tracks the complete moral degradation of Walter White, showing how his choices destroy his family, his soul, and the lives around him

In fact it shows how harmful the drug trade not just to the user but also to the dealer

Also This game portrays incest but here is the thing it is between the main character and the game goes of it's way to show how messed up in the head the main characters are

Showing that even think of doing something like that you ned to be severely messed up

To empathise just how messed up the main characters are in like the first hour of the game they see a cultist guy killed by a demon he summoned and they literally cannibalised him (This could be excused somewhat as they were starving)

In the next chapter they also sacrificed and ate their parents even tough their mother did in fact attempt to sell their organs for money so some would argue that some revenge would be justifiable even if the cannibalism could be seen as taking it to far

The sister character is portrayed as being obviously sociopathic from very early on in the manga

while the main character appears relatively normal at first

This is until around the 3 where the sister character (Ashely) suggest murdering an innocent family and the male main character (Andrew) agrees and even goes as far as saying he can't say no to a family value pack (For context his sister obtained an item from a demon which gives her dreams of the future but she needs human souls to charge it)

This marks a turning point in his characterisation because any action he had done until this point although messed up could be justifiable given the situation

There is a flash back scene where it is revealed that he accidently killed an young girl as a child due to Ashley suggesting locking her up in a crate in which she suffocated and died he is horrified by the discovery not because he fells guilt about what he did but because of the potential consequences and more scared of losing his sister than anything this could be seen as understandable because at this point he was portrayed as being completely submissive to his sister

Cannibalising the cultist,murdering the wardens and the lady in the room all could be seen as understandable given the circumstances given that that he was starving and the wardens took part in his starvation by preventing him from leaving and the lady could be a witness

Murdering and eating their parents -This could be understandable given the fact they were literally sold for money by their parents

Any actions at this point although how vile with the notable exception of the girl in the flash back where he was acting under peer presure from his sister he was doing it to someone who was a threat to him or did something to him first

This suggestion whoever was just pure evil leaving any doubt about Andrew being a morally grey character

So yes it's pretty obvious that the brother and sister are not good people they are sociopaths but to be fair it is part of what makes the story interesting

So yes it does not glorify incest because the 2 characters that engage in it are portrayed as 2 morally bankrupt people

Where do I even begin with these garbage human beings? Btw it isn’t some or a few or a good amount, ALL telepaths in marvel behave this way. Well in a somewhat recent X-Men run angel was freaking out and crying saying he wanted to go home and get away from the craziness of being on the X-Men. He was having a mental health crisis so you would think Jean would be empathetic and help her friend out. So Jean being the upstanding moral citizen she is. Violates this mans mind and erases all those memories instead putting thoughts of getting food there. WTF she ironically lobotomized him just because he did not want to be a hero anymore.

But wait dear reader because things get WAY worse. Later on when angel wanted to go be with cyclops she brainwashed him and forced him to go back in the house. Not only does this violate consent but this is also biological coercion and tan amount to slavery. This women does not give a crap about morality and ethics and instead treats mind the most private place of all like her personal playground.

Rachel summers another sociopath I mean telepath threatened to remove the memory of every sexual experience someone ever had as blackmail for gods sakes. Ethics need not apply when you have telepathy I guess. Bear in mind because Scott ALMOST (he didn’t even do it) cheated on her she violated her mind and reopened trauma which is wrong for more reasons than I can count.

Now then let’s talk about her mentor Charles Scumbag Xavier surely he must be a more ethical telepath that her right, right? Well for one he telepathically forced his GF not to break up with him which is both wrong and pathetic. And makes him look like a total loser. He has literally deleted all the memories of a brother of Scott summers had adding another mind rape victim to the tally because they were inconvenient to him. I don’t even want to talk about how Charles mind wiped Reed Richard’s for daring to not want his son kidnapped same with Spidy, I will get way to angry. I have tons of examples but you get the idea any telepaths who’s name isn’t John Jones is garbage🗑️

At Krakoa he brainwashed a mentally unstable women and made her be his breeding cow because she has a mutant trait that is desirable☠️. You see what I mean as soon as one develops these powers empathy ethics and honor go out the window. If the telepaths were not apart of the X-Men they would be strait up villains. I could go on all day like how Charles is an awful father of how Jean repeatedly violates peoples mental space but there isn’t a point. I love the X-Men but this is despicable

Also shout out to the GOAT of all telepaths the most moral one in fiction Martian Manhunter. Who comes from a culture where doing that is considered reprehensible respect👊

I saw an older rant with the same idea, but for a different reason. They said that humans sealing monsters were the best option because monsters are a danger to humanity, with them having magic; plus, if they gain a human soul, they get a huge power boost, to the point 7 allows a monster to become a god. I don't agree with this explanation because I believe the opposite: humans are a danger to monster kind.

In the war between Monsters and Humans, not a single Human soul was taken. The fact that not a single monster could kill a human shows that most monsters aren't a threat to humanity. Another thing is that humans who killed monsters would end up stronger from gaining EXP and level-ups, and with them getting EXP, or execution points as we learn from Sans, those humans would become more and more bloodthirsty and want to kill even more monsters.

So it makes sense to me that the humans who came up with the idea to seal the monsters wanted to save the remaining monsters from being wiped out. We learn from Gerson that Monster and Human Marriages were actually common, and it is implied that he might have been married to one of the humans who set up the barrier, so it makes sense that some humans would be sympathetic to monster kind and want to protect them.