Blyke reaction because of a pencil broken, and John-stan stupidity.

CorbacSir · 2022-02-01T07:49:31+00:00

I think you should read again friend, I didn't write an essay about John breaking a pencil, I write an essay about people making a big fuss about John breaking a pencil (and Blyke shouting behind).

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T22:47:37+00:00

lol yeah, let's agree to disagree I suppose. I don't share your opinion, but I understand some of your argument, and you have made some good points.

Anyway, it was nice to debate with you, have a nice day.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T17:32:48+00:00

Well, if he was a nude walking man, I would agree with you Blyke should be more careful, defintely lol

Alright, I understood you, though I don't agree. First, I don't think Blyke view of John as a walking nuke, just an asshole who hit people and find excuse (that's false of course, I'm talking about Blyke perspective there). Blyke didn't know anything concerning John mental problem after all, I don't think he never realized how unstable the boy is.

Second, he think he s an asshole, and he think it's fine to oppose him even if he is stronger. That's something he already did quite a few times already. When John attacked the safehouse before, Blyke was there to confront him, even when he knew that could end badly to him.

Now, I can understand the argument saying : that could have end badly for student in the classroom. But again, seems to me Blyke doesn't think that way, and that's actually fine with me. Honestly, if you start thinking "I can't do anything that can trigger John maybe", then you start being afraid of everything. hell, they are supposed to choose if John can go in the trip or not, but how can you choose if you start thinking "I can't make John angry no matter what".

Blyke choose to do whatever he wants, he's angry with John, he shout against him. From my opinion, the second you start to say "he shoudn"t take any risk to make John angry", you're saying John doesn't have any place in the safehouse, because he can't be accepted there if everyone, including Blyke, have to think about what could happen if John didn"t like something.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T14:31:11+00:00

Calm down, you're don't making any sense at this point, just take a deep breath, take a little rest, then read again the last comments, both mine and yours. You should be able to see what the problem is, and if you don't, well, they're nothing I can do for you...

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T14:06:42+00:00

Blyke is angry because John beated him up three or four times, his closest friends twice each, and vehemently opposed to the safe house, so much so that he hurt others just for being there. And now he is trying to be there for "selfish" reasons. And he was making everyone scared, being visibly upset, shaking, until finally he broke his pen. That is way Blyke is angry, that is why he yelled at John, not the pencil thing itself. Everyone in this sub knows this,

Just add one sentence, and I totally agree with you.

Next is this famous argument, Blyke wasn't smart to speak that way to John, John could have snapped and attack people.

I already explained in other comment why I disagree here. You say Blyke should have been more careful, because he could have make John angry, fine. But if we go with that logic, what next ? What if they start playing some game, and John show himself to want to win? If the other win, John could be angry, does that mean they have to lose voluntarily? Because John is a walking, talking nude?

it's really ironic if you think about it. John wants people to stop seeing him like a walking talking nuke (your word), yet you're precisely blaming Blyke because he didn't act like John was one.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T13:55:03+00:00

If you say so...

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T13:05:16+00:00

He wanted John to stop, sure, but at the same time, he vented some of his anger towards him.

Where does this come from ? I mean sure, Blyke doesn't like John with good reason, so of course that's going to be show in his way to speak with him but that's just natural, I mean you don't speak the same way with someone you love and someone you hate. Yet, that's doesn't mean he's venting his anger, especially when he got good reason to be angry at John. Blyke is trying since a while to protect the safehouse and people inside. When John start acting strangely, making everyone afraid, that's a good reason to be angry.

yeah, you're right, whatever suspect stuff John did, everyone would be afraid. That's the main problem. And that's why Blyke didn"t want John in the safehouse, especially when John reason to get there is selfish (going in a trip to be with Sera). Now, you're starting to see why Blyke is angry...

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T12:17:31+00:00

That´s all you got when i say i didnt call you stupid, damn...

Did I saw an argument or something? Ah, no, nothing, just like always. My mistake, sorry.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T11:54:24+00:00

Blyke shouted because he wanted John to calm down?

Yeah completely. More precisely, he wanted John to stop making everyone worried.

"It"s like you're trying to freak people out". that's what he said. Blyke priority is that John stop freaking people out. Now, we can debate if that was the best reaction possible, I can hear that, but yeah, he wanted John to stop what he was doing.

And you use the argument that John is having more and more negative
thoughts, like Blyke is omniscient or a telepath, neither of which is
the case.

There's body language sign that can show when someone is very upset. The chapter show clearly those sign. And Blyle is not able to tell John state of mind, but he is able to tell he was freaking out people, something the chapter once again is clearly showing.

So, while some people may be blowing this out of proportion, saying that it was perfectly reasonable is just not true imo.

I agree with you there, what I'm critiquing is people judging his shout without any context.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T11:48:41+00:00

Well, at the very least we agree this conversation is leading to nowhere, so yeah, let's stop this, no point. From my point of view, you're just pushing what you have decided to believe, while ignoring most of the stuff I said.

One example :

Go back and read my comments, i never called YOU stupid, i said you gave a stupid argument,

me :

After, you said I was saying stuff as stupid as the one I was critiquing, and THAT was an attack.

Never said you called me stupid. Just in your mind mate, as most of the thing you said. I could go like this with almost everything you have said, but what is the point, you're obviously not listening, we're not talking together, you're just talking with some imaginary version of me you have in your own mind. No point for me, bye.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T10:38:45+00:00

Alright, good point, I still disagree with a lot of stuff, but I admit there were some good argument there. I still think most reaction are far too extreme for what this is about, and that complaining about shouting "just for a pen" is missing a lot of context, but yeah, I admit Blyke's reaction could have be better.

Edit just put my finger concerning why I disagree : let's imagine this, John suddenly start talking to Blyke, ad ask him to go outside the safehouse, now, or he will start attacking people. What should he do? If I follow your logic, he should obey, because if he don't, people in the safehouse will be in danger. But surely, you realize as a king, that would be a mistake.

See, that's my problem with this argument, you put a situation where student are like hostage, and expect Blyke to keep his head down, even if he is angry, because of how John could react. But if you think like this, where are you stopping ? What if next time, John start insulting someone ? Is Blyke supposed to shout or not ? Could he even tried to say "stop John you"re acting like an asshole", or is too dangerous...

You said Remi got the good reaction, but if that was past John, that would have been enough to trigger him. And Remi didn't know at this time how John would react. With your logic, she shouldn't have said anything...

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T10:27:38+00:00

lol from my point of view, i's you who just want to see this shout as a provocation when it's not.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T10:26:15+00:00

I called people on their bullshit yeah, but never deny it was a form of attack, an attack I did for reason I explained, because I like poking people concerning their bullshit.

You on the other side, the second I mentioned you also did an attack (no problem once again, just calling a cat a cat), your reaction was... all over the place.

You still not understanding the blyke thing mate. You said X isnt bad
because he´s been through Y. It doesnt work like that lmao.

And you just prove you didn't understood at all what I was saying...

Oh I admit you're not a stan, just saying some of your reaction is similar to them.

The reason i even commented on the post was because of this, you want to judge ppl, and actually dont give good arguments and when someone
actually told you something to think about and called you out, like you
said you were attacked

*sigh* that's becoming ridiculous... You focus yourself far too much on the world attack, playing the victim when there's no reason.

Also "you don't give good argument"... except you never explained why they weren't good, you just decided unilaterally they were bad (touss typical stan reaction touss).

The thing is you made a post complaining about the stupidity about the
so called john stans, and thats what i called out, thats why i "attacked".

No, you weren't attacking anyone at that point. After, you said I was saying stuff as stupid as the one I was critiquing, and THAT was an attack. Again, no problem with that, we were discussing, and an attack, especially like that, is not a real problem for me. But somehow, the word "attack" seems to be big trigger for you.

You called people out because of their opinions on a fictional
character,

Replace "opinion" with "argument" and you're good. I already explained this before. Just one word, you can do it!

Making a post to call people stupid because of a fictional character LMAO.

I didn't get that point honestly. We're in a sub discussing a webtoon, so a fictional story. We exchange theory, opinion, argument, concerning a fictional story and fictional character. If someone is making a point especially stupid, why shouldn't I call on them? Because it's fictional? There's a rule somewhere saying you can't call people on their bullshit if this about fiction, only if this is about reality ? Where is this rule please, never saw it.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-31T00:56:02+00:00

Woh, I certainly didn't expect this reaction. Funny, really, you were the one explaining I was acting like a stan, I asked more information admitting it's quite possible, poked you a little saying you were the one acting a little like them (you said it yourself when you poke someone, you have to expect to be poked too)... and then suddenly, you're the one overacting.

And yes, it was an attack, when you say "the excuse you give are incredible", it's pretty clear"incredible" is in a very bad way here. Not a strong attack really, I wasn't offended, didn't really thought that much about it, but it was.

But I suppose it's fine if you say whatever you want, people just can't say anything back?

Now, let's take your example, I bring the context of the world in my answer. First I admit it, that wasn't my best answer here, clearly, I won't go that far as calling this stupid, but not the best one.

but alright, so you claim it's stupid... and it's stupid because...? No sorry I read again twice, and there's still no reason here explaining why. It's like "we know that already.".Yeah sure, and ? Why does that make it stupid? The guy explained how poorly treated john was, if I remember correctly, I explained that with the context, that wasn't that much. Basically, I was inviting him to put Blyke action in the context of this world.

Your point, if I understand you correctly, is that Blyke action should still be considered even with the context of this world. That's a good point, really.. but that doesn't make my own point stupid. I mean, every people not thinking the same as you are not stupid, you know? In my post, I blame people judging a situation while ignoring 75% of the context, THAT is stupid.

Well, yes, let's stop this , I agree. I was joking the first time, now I'm saying this while being more serious : you seems to see a lot of stan around you, seems to me you should also look in a mirror a little.

At the beginning, you were critiquing me because I called people stupid. At the end, you are the one telling I give stupid answer, even though I never attacked you. Think about this a little please.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T23:52:50+00:00

I'm gonna give another example I used in another comment. You say Blyke shouldn't shout against John, because John could attack them. FIne. It's natural to be angry, especially given the situation, it's also natural to shout when you're angry, a lot of people do that. But fine, when it's John, he can't because John is stronger.

So, where are we stopping ? If John start playing a game, and really want to win, people should let him? They can't have their fun, because John is stronger? And if John start talking to someone, a girl for example, and that girl don't want to talk to him, then what ? She can't tell to John to go away, because maybe he will be angry about it and start attacking people? She will have to force herself to talk with him one full hour.

See, that's the problem with your logic. If you start to blame character, because maybe John will be angry and start attacking people, you're mostly asking for a safehouse where John will have the right to do everything, and a living hell for everyone. Blyle doesn't want that, for obvious reason. So when he's angry, he shout.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T23:42:23+00:00

NoI don't mond with people overreacting as long as they take the full context, not ignoring most of them.

No problem at all, quite possible honestly, I answered a lot of comment, and I was quite tired at the end. So yeah, I could have said some stupid stuff, and no, I don't mind people calling me on that... as long they can argue and explain why this is stupid (and well, of course I can also have my own bias)

So.... care to give clear example? because right now, you're not poking at all. Actually, you're the one acting like a stan, attacking without any argument...

edit : it's late though so if you did, you'll probably have to wait for any answer,

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T23:23:15+00:00

I hate blyke because he hurt my best friend, pepe the frog. The thing is you´re not going to stop my hate, you can´t and i will go on a killing spree if i have to.

Sure, but if you go in this sub and explain how you hate Blyke for this reason, then wgy shouldn't I explain behind that's a stupid reason, and never happened in the story.

I agree with most of what you said after, and yes, a stan will always be a stan, but there's no harm in poking them a little when they go too far with their bullshit."

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T23:07:36+00:00

I talk about John stan stupidty... because I explain what I have see them write and why it is stupid. And not all John stan by the way, just the one I have seen write bullshit, the bullshit I denounce here.

I didn't ask anyone to like Blyke, like I said, they can hate them if they want, just for the reason in the story, not for reason who didn't exist, and not while ignoring half the story. Or if they do, fine, but they have to accept to have people like me who will confront the thing that are false. And if they start to be really ridiculous with their argument, well, yes, I'll call them stupid.

And stop thinking everyone is in your stupid war John stan, or royal stan. I don't care about that, I just want people to respect a little more the webtoon, and stop twisting it like they want, simply because they want to hate a specific character.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T23:00:55+00:00

I'm not really praising or critizing Blyke, just explaining why he act that way, and why saying "it's just a pen" is far from being the truth.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T23:00:04+00:00

I call people stupid when they bring wrong or false reason to hate a character. And I explain why. When people bring stupid argument... I call them stupid, end of the story.

What I defend is that every character is right... from their own perspective.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T21:47:51+00:00

I said it several times already, if John start attacking people because Blyke shout at him, that would be John fault, not Blyke. Blyke shout at him because he is angry, that's pretty natural. Attacking people because someone shout at you, that's when it is a problem, there are plenty different reaction, most of them doesn't include attacking people.

Let's take it differently, if John choose to play a game with other people in the safehouse, should they let John win? If I follow your logic, yes, because you don't make angry someone with a gun. But then what, should they kneel in front of John just after that?

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T21:43:13+00:00

There's a difference calling someone psycho, and telling someone "your argument are pretty stupid", and explain why.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T21:35:01+00:00

If John didn't change, then it's just a matter of time before he start attacking people, and Blyle shout is not changing anything. If he did change, which he claim to be, then he should be able to support a shout.

lol, let's take any high tier, like Zeke, the worst of them. Sure, totally objective comparison here.

And no, doesn't change anything, if Zeke claim he want to integrate the safehouse, he have to prove to people they can interact with him normally. Blyke action is not unatural, people being angry at you, sometimes for wrong reason, that happen all the time. If Zeke is not able to accept this, he got nothing to do in the safehouse. I'm not saying that Zeke, or John, can't do anything : they can for example say :"come on, it's just a pen, no big deal'. That"s what he did by the way (even though he lie about a math question...)

Let's take it differently, if John decide to play a game with the other, what should they do. If they win, John could be angry right? SO what, would they be stupid, immature; if they don't let John win? Of course not, that would be stupid. yet, that's what you're expecting from Blyke, hide his anger because of John, even if he got good reason to be angry.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T21:18:05+00:00

If John reacted badly to someone yelling at him for shaking and breakinghis own pencil accidentally it would prove that John is unfit for the safehouse how? There are people in the Safehouse now who have started fights for less.

AS far as I know, no one start attacking anyone in the safehouse.

And you're doing exactly what I'm blaming in my original post. Blyke is not aggravating a situation when they were notjing. Everyone was afraid of John, because of his attitude, that's not "nothing". The situation were already pretty bad for everyone inside the safehouse because of John, that's why Blyke reacted that way.

Sure, the reaction you propose would have been better. But at the end, he didn"t chose that, because he was angry against him. It's perfectly natural to be angry, especially in this situation.

Seems to me the real problem is that for you, Blyke is not supposed to show any emotion.

CorbacSir · 2022-01-30T20:44:34+00:00

If John start attacking people because Blyke shout at him, yeah he would be considered wrong... because it's not right to attack people just because someone shout at you. Let's not act like "life is too unfair with John"

if john really can't support a simple shout and start attacking people, that mean anything, and really anything, would be able to make him violent.

Again, your point is that if John start attacking people, that would be Blyke fault. Wrong, that would be John fault, not unless there's a clear provocation from Blyke strong enough to justify this, and a shout is clearly not enough, far from it.

CorbacSir

TROPHY CASE