In the 90s there was this purple dinosaur from a children’s TV show that everyone seemed to hate. I don’t know anything about him or why we were supposed to hate him. To know anything about him you would have to have watched a show for 3 year olds, so if you did that then you deserve to be annoyed by it. Right?
Satan
Skyler White. I didn’t even know that she was hated quite a lot. I always thought she is actually the most sane person given the situation she’s in.
I like how these conversations always ignore the wrong things Skylar did, such as cheating with Ted. It’s always “well Walter was the devil, so anything she did was ok”. She still begins the show by showing very little care for his birthday and making it feel like a chore. She’s literally part of why he feels he’s in a hum drum boring life with no control. His character ark is largely about him going from a meek high school professor afraid to do anything into a completely fearless kingpin who finally has control over his life. Yes, the point is that he goes too far. But it’s also shown pretty clearly early on that he feels powerless and like his life is out of control(you know, like a sudden terminal cancer diagnosis might do).
Was Walter a bad person? Yes. Was Skylar also a bad person who didn’t truly see him as an equal and who, when given the chance, cheats on him remorselessly? Also yup.
Multiple people can be bad. Even Hank, arguably one of the most moral characters, suffers from major blindspots and is a dismissive dick to Marie.
People defending Skylar are the kind of people that say “I can do what I want because it’s a free country” and get shocked when they learn there are consequences to their actions, even if justified.
Same, and I suspect that not many people ever did hate Skylar… But the narrative makes for good content, so the few that did hate on Skylar got portrayed as the majority.
IIRC, though, Anna Gunn mentioned having a lot of negative interactions with the audience conflating her with her character… So who knows.
Thanos; I can understand his reasoning, his solution doesn’t favor anyone either and seemed painless.
I thought the reasoning portrayed in the movies made a lot less sense than the reasoning in the comics.
If his goal is to eliminate poverty and balance the resources vs consumption, why not double the resources rather than destabilize the entire universe in the process of halving the consumption of resources?
A shortsighted and foolish plan at least makes sense when it’s in the pursuit of romance.
Except for his solution is basically, “Let’s put the population back a whole 40 years or so, while massively disrupting society and the economy and being guaranteed to traumatize virtually everyone remaining. That will fix everything!” The only person who could think that was at all reasonable would have to have a grade school understanding of how the world works and no interpersonal connections, or what they mean to most people.
The next generations will bounce back. They will not have experienced the thanos snap.
So at best this turned the population clock back 40 or 50 years. How is that a solution to anything? This is like pining about the good old days. Also, I suggest you read a little about generational trauma, because I’m pretty sure having half of everyone you know disappearing, and that applying to everyone, is going to have a little of that.
Thanos’ reasoning is idiotic.
People are a resource. If you eliminated half the people, not only have you wasted all resources that went into those people, but you’ve wasted everything those people could produce. Minus half of agricultural workers would probably mean way less than half production. The post-snap world would be a place of austerity and starvation. You could recover sure, but it’d be time for another snap.
On the surface I understand, but as you dig deeper the logistics don’t make a lot of since with the “indiscriminate” part. Let’s say you had two warring factions of almost equal power. How would the snap know to take an equal amount so that there isn’t a massive power shift which could lead to a much more negative outcome. What if there was a single, very influencial person that got snapped. Things like that. His goal was to alieviate suffering but there are so many better ways he could have approached it. It’s possible I’d need to dive into the backstory more to determine what made him choose that specific action.
About the 2 faction problem, theoretically 50% of each faction will be gone. Chances are big that the power balance remains the same. But you can idd argue that making 1 faction completely dissappear is also 50% and statistically possible.
About the influential people (let add geniuses to be complete). Those persons are not unique, nobody is irreplaceable. Someone else will step up to be equally influential, Someone else will figure stuff out.
The reason he choose that action is not to be biased and give everyone an equally 50% chance of survival. In his eyes, a cleaning lady deserves an equal chance to a CEO.
I think that’s where we differ in analysis. If you had a charismatic leader who was snapped and another that was ruthless who wasn’t snapped, even if you lost 50% on both sides, it could greatly cause an imbalance.
As for a genius or such, it could set progress back by decades or more or they could have produced something that had a positive effect to change the course of their race.
Uncle Iroh
I know he’s a genocidal war criminal, but he lost his son and traveled a long path of tea and paisho eventually cherishing and mentoring his nephew.
Uncle Ruckus
He’s a simple man, tryin’ to make his way in the world. Life’s dealt him a tough hand, but he played it the best he could. He worked hard, respected the values he was raised with, and tries to bring a bit of order to this chaotic world. He ma be rough around the edges and may not make words so good, but he believes in tough love and speaking his mind.
Where in the world have you seen Iroh getting “more hate than he deserves”
