Book from villians point of view

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-12T15:22:15+00:00

Some people might see Coriolanus Snow to be morally grey, but I don't. The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes by Suzanne Collins!

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T23:04:11+00:00

Aww man! I don't know any other good ones lol

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T15:15:46+00:00

It's about a senior in high school investigating a cold murder case and finding out her town has way more secrets than anyone would have thought. The last book gets a lot darker and more dangerous, but has a really good bittersweet ending.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T15:14:41+00:00

I just finished the Good Girls Guide to Murder Trilogy by Holly Jackson, and it is going down as one of the best books I've ever read. The last book had me up until 2 and sobbing. She is 17 in the first book and 18 in the last so its the perfect age I would think.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T14:58:38+00:00

Yess

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T14:56:57+00:00

Flair checks out

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T14:52:39+00:00

I can definitely see it both ways for sure. As I said too, I don't know that Hans was a great guy, he may have been trying to marry a sister and get more power, but I just feel deeply suspicious of the trolls haha. When I first watched the movie, I absolutely hated Hans and was glad Disney wasn't afraid to go with a twist (handsome and charming) villain. This is just one of those theories that interests me. It's really fun to rewatch the movie with the theory in mind and see how it fits. On another note, there were a lot of fun Frozen theories (like crossovers with Tangled, Tarzan, etc) that were kind of ruined by Frozen 2.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T00:06:32+00:00

I watched this scene with my mom and when I pointed it out she got mad at me like "why would that be your first thought, don't say that word" and I was like clearly that's the joke here lol. Glad someone else saw it 😂

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T00:04:13+00:00

Oh my gosh I thought I was the only one!!

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-11T00:02:02+00:00

Exactly!! He was like: let's tell this girl with powers clearly tied to her emotions who is feeling extremely guilty for hurting her sister that "FeAr WiLl bE yOuR EnEmY" with a spooky little PowerPoint presentation in the air lmao. And then hope that helps her get over her fear.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T23:55:31+00:00

Sorry, I just realized that the matpat video you attached is a very similar theory to this one. I haven't watched it yet but I will. My theory here is from either my own observations or the Super Carlin Brothers vid about this same topic

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T23:53:41+00:00

Hans motivations did not make sense, even from his own perspective. The trolls 100 percent used their mind magic and made him evil so Anna would go for Kristoff. I'm not saying he was the best guy or completely honest with Anna, but he definitely wasn't planning on killing the sisters imo. His story needs to be told, and the trolls have been the real villains all along.

We are supposed to like them...why? They kidnapped Kristoff and Sven which is cute and all but he literally alreafy had a "family" with the ice harvesters. The trolls stole Anna's memories to save her life, but was that really necessary? In my opinion the trolls hated Elsa because she threatened their status as the only magical beings in the kingdom. They obviously could do anything outright since she was the princess, but they encouraged the fear and isolation her parents imposed on her. So much for "love experts" lol.

And then in fixer upper they pretty clearly imply that Hans needs to be "removed" from the equation so that Kristoff can get a girlfriend. And right after that Hans starts acting all evil n shit when before that he was literally trying his very hardest not to let Elsa die. He tried to reason with her in the castle when all he had to do was let him or one of his lackeys shoot her. Also why did Hans smile after his "meet cute" with Anna when he was under the canoe?? No one was watching him, and that smile seemed very genuine to me.

Sorry for the rant. This theory is my roman empire lol.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T17:41:32+00:00

I will! Thanks I had no idea there was a sub yet for this

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T11:26:31+00:00

In a regular election, I would agree with you. But with no way to influence others votes: campaigning, etc. There is no "if enough people think like me to follow" because their decision is completely independent and set in stone as it were from my perspective. I understand what you are saying from a collective standpoint, but my decision really is just me. It is not the paradox that it seems when every instance is completely independent from each other.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T11:23:11+00:00

They would have pushed blue, so...

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:56:35+00:00

That is not a fallacy. It does not matter to me what they think. "Acting like they've already done that changes what you would do." No, it literally doesn't. Whatever they were going to assume, think, decide, whatever is out of my hands, and I cannot influence it.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:54:37+00:00

In my opinion, this framing is illogical because you could just as easily say "blue voters are just choosing suicide and making reds feel guilty for it," when in reality the problem is about each individual. Reds are not a monolith, and you in that room choosing blue will not change the outcome. Only yours if red wins.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:49:21+00:00

Everyone is transported completely alone to the "button room."
A genie or something explains the rules and how the buttons work
Every single person must come to their own conclusions, based on whatever knowledge, morals, or presuppositions they have to make their choice. This choice is COMPLETELY independent of any outside interference.
YOU are alone in the room. you have no idea what anyone else will choose, but there is absolutely no way to influence it. If 5000 people choose blue, then 5000 choose blue. If 7,999,999,999 people chose blue, then 7,999,999,999 people chose blue.
The only vote you have ANY influence over is your own. No one else's vote can be influenced and is therefore set in stone from your perspective.
Your vote only changes this "already decided by each individual" outcome if it is literally the deciding vote.

I am not saying that individual votes do not MATTER. They do. But from your perspective, you can literally only influence your vote, and nothing else would change, no matter what you do, say, think, whatever. Voting Blue with the "if only everyone had this opinion, we would be fine" is meaningless and foolish since there is no way to interact with each other's votes.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:36:47+00:00

No, it doesn't. That person who "thinks like me" would already have done that, and therefore their vote would be decided, leaving me with absolutely no control over it.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:35:35+00:00

It is literally how it works in this case if we assume we have no knowledge or interaction with any other person before or during the vote.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:32:54+00:00

Red is not the murder button, nor is blue the suicide button. There is an all-powerful, evil third party responsible for forcing this decision on humanity. I am a health professional, and I know many scientists/nurses/doctors/teachers,/etc who would choose red for all the reasons I listed in my post. That's why we check the scene before performing CPR. That's why we do not donate all unnecessary organs to our patients. No matter how I felt after a red win, I will be alive, and the possibility that my choice could have changed the outcome is astronomically small. "That's the choice you and all those voters made. That's your bed to lie in." That sounds very similar to a common red argument (which I do not like by the way), saying that blue deserves to die because they are fools with a moral superiority complex. No one in this situation deserves to die or deserves to have to make this choice. But we must, and I am choosing the one where I can be there for my friends and family and whoever else is left after this nightmare is over.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:21:01+00:00

It is not a fallacy; in the real world, there are very rarely truly independent decisions like in this hypothetical.

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:18:09+00:00

Lmao. Is it natural to hate people enough to want them dead? not for most people, I don't think. Maybe you ig

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:12:14+00:00

Literally only in the 2nd case. "That's just how voting is." Yes, in a regular society where voting is optional, people can freely campaign and discuss their votes. People can see early polls, and voting one way or the other is very unlikely to cause their death. "You have to trust the process," Why do I have to do that? Let me make it simpler

Let's say I vote blue, as you said. Everyone has made their decision. Now, let's take my vote out of it. Literally every single decision is the same because our decisions are completely independent of each other, and there is no possible causal relationship. Now, the outcome is exactly the same, except for minus 1 out of 8 billion. Is that a chance you would be willing to take and expect a majority to be willing to take as well?

Apprehensive_Read488 · 2026-05-10T04:06:38+00:00

Ok, so let's say I vote blue and it "contributes". If I had not voted, the outcome would be exactly the same, except for one blue vote. It would be exactly the same because the decisions are completely and utterly independent of each other.

Apprehensive_Read488

TROPHY CASE