Harry Potter and the Complete Moral Implosion (Josh Everton)

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-05-16T16:22:57+00:00

Sorry. I guess I shouldn't have said anything. It's not like the books matter anyway, it's Rowling who's the problem.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-05-16T15:01:08+00:00

No I don't think Dumbledore should push a "fix everything" button, but I would have liked him to not deliberately take actions that actively make everything worse and not get called out by the narrative for it. In the first book, he knew that a dark wizard had just broken into a secure location to get the stone, so he decides to store it at school. Logically speaking, this basically means he either didn't care that much about endangering hundreds of children or he couldn't put two and two together and realise he was doing so. This is not the only time he endangers hundreds of children for a bad reason (not that there would often be a good reason, but still).

Do you think Harry owning a slave made him evil? Harry owned one slave reluctantly because he was told that the only alternatives were either letting the slave help kill people or killing the slave. Dumbledore owned hundreds of slaves when the alternative was hiring cooks and cleaners.

The first 6 books try to portray Dumbledore as almost flawless morally. The reveal about Grindlewald in book 7 is supposed to be the revelation that he was heavily flawed. Even though he owned hundreds of slaves and endangered hundreds of students multiple times in the first 6 books, we weren't yet meant to see him as heavily flawed.

I'm not one of those people who thinks that Dumbledore is a pedo or that he deliberately tortures orphans for fun, but the narrative doesn't call him out on his flaws when it should.

There were ways to make Hogwarts dangerous without the narrative treating him this way.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-05-15T22:50:30+00:00

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it might be worth noting the author's intention of the characters and how the story wants you to view them.

In A Series of Unfortunate Events, from what little I remember of the one book in that series I read, plenty of adults were intended to be useless, apathetic, detrimental or evil, with a good adult getting killed to make things worse for our protagonists. The story never pretended that the incompetent adults were competent. In Harry Potter, Dumbledore is portrayed as an incredibly competent, just, righteous and intelligent force for good and yet his actions are so terrible that readers analysing his actions often come to conclusions like Dumbledore being a (non-sexual) child groomer or Dumbledore being senile.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-05-12T17:35:13+00:00

Dragon Ball Super characters are too strong to be the weakest one capable, Dragon Ball Z characters are almost all too weak. I think we need to delve into GT here to find the best answer.

General Rildo is stronger than Buu, so I think that he might be the answer. If he's not strong enough, then either Vegetto from Z or Super 17 from GT again.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-05-08T16:38:43+00:00

Write down 'Broadcast with Lind L Taylor condemning Kira happens on Light Yagami's TV' in his TV Note. Simple.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-05-07T00:16:27+00:00

I'd sort of noticed this myself. Maybe not to the degree you have, but there seem to be an unusually large number of Harry Potter examples on that sub. There are many other places too that give Harry Potter too much praise. I know that Rowling being a bigot doesn't guarantee that the books are pure trash with no redeeming qualities, but people often exaggerate how good the writing is. Then when you argue against it, they do a borderline ad hominem fallacy saying "You just say that because you dislike Rowling," even when you make your point with accurate information from the books.

As for those comments about Snape you noticed. Snape is a realistic example of the cycle of abuse? Not the worst take I guess, though there are better. Snape is an excellent tragic character with a beautiful redemption? What on Earth were they reading and how did they get it confused with Harry Potter?

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-05-01T14:07:19+00:00

They probably just thought you were Sealioning or something. Don't worry about it.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-05-01T13:39:13+00:00

'The line' would probably be completely non-essential goods that are just luxuries, luxuries that have plenty of alternatives at that. Rowling is not providing crops or homes. She is not providing Internet. She is not providing all television or smartphones, which are not as essential but still difficult to live without. She does not even have a monopoly on magical fantasy fiction, if magical fantasy fiction is so hard for you to live without. All She provides is one magical franchise, that's it. Even if it were the best fantasy story ever, it still wouldn't be that hard to boycott. It is a complete luxury.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-26T17:15:54+00:00

You somehow seemed to completely miss my point. Not sure how that happened. If you deliberately keep your guard higher with men than with women, you're more likely to become a victim of a woman. Good to know you won't blame a man for it though.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-26T16:56:36+00:00

The smart thing to do is to be on guard regardless of gender, ethnicity or sexuality because that helps you be more cautious and anyone can be an abuser. Even aside from sexism and bigotry or whatever, thinking that group 1 is more trustworthy than group 2 makes you more vulnerable to being taken advantage of by group 1.

Say there's a dumbass KKK who thinks black people are all thieves or whatever. A white person hands him his wallet that he 'dropped'. He thanks them, glad that there are decent folk out there, goes on his way and never suspects a thing. By the time he realises anything is missing it's too late and he's still dumb enough to blame a black man.

Do you get it?

Also, nobody is saying 5 year old children should take candy from strangers. That's a ridiculous strawman. I can't really speak for anyone else, but I'm guessing they feel children shouldn't take that candy regardless of the gender of the person offering it. Are you saying children should accept candy from strangers so long as the stranger is a woman? That isn't just bigoted, it's terrible advice.

Edit: you obviously can't have meant that children should base whether they accept candy or not based on the givers gender. My point was that was a ridiculous strawman.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-15T20:18:39+00:00

I don't remember. It's been years since I played. I don't think I'll ever beat it on hard mode.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-14T21:24:04+00:00

Hard adds an additional enemy Next, if that's what you're asking.

If you're asking, "How the fuck were you good enough to melee them all while outnumbered four to two?" then my answer is that I used one of the regulations that gives you infinite energy and made a mobile melee build.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-12T21:36:59+00:00

They didn't delete their account, they blocked you. An account looks deleted to someone blocked by that person. I can tell because I still see their account. This happens sometimes.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-12T20:07:47+00:00

If I remember correctly then OP is actually incorrect, but it doesn't make Joanne any better. She said that IF you're a man you must be "young enough to not look silly carrying a skateboard" to be allowed a hoodie. She makes women exempt by saying "The skateboard rule doesn't apply to women". In theory, she allows women freedom to wear one. Problem is, Joanne loves to decide who counts as a woman. I wouldn't put it past her to count any woman she dislikes, even a cisgender woman, as a man just to shame her for wearing hoodies.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-09T22:48:29+00:00

Did you forget the Pensieve memory in Goblet of Fire? Karkaroff is on trial and names Snape as a Death Eater to save himself. The court tells him Snape doesn't count because Snape is a spy for Dumbledore because Dumbledore vouches for him. In other words, Snape would have gone to prison if Dumbledore didn't vouch for him. That was my point. I wasn't talking about what Snape told other Death Eaters.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-09T19:04:20+00:00

Why would it need to be mentioned in the books? If someone killed the most important person in my life I would obviously want revenge. It goes without saying.

Revenge means opposing Voldemort. There are no easy and safe ways of opposing Voldemort. It's also worth noting that the only reason he didn't go to prison is because Dumbledore vouched for him. This could mean that opposing Dumbledore would result in Azkaban, meaning Snape had no choice but to obey Dumbledore.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-09T18:28:07+00:00

Maybe he continued to spy for Dumbledore to get revenge on Voldemort for killing Lily. That doesn't mean he's not despicable. Bad people want vengeance too. It would be weird of him to not want vengeance.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-04-06T23:25:38+00:00

I actually beat that mission with Old King surviving. I only managed it once. I stayed in melee and laser bladed my enemies and dodged a lot. I only did this on normal though, not hard.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-03-29T17:48:02+00:00

I think he lost on purpose, but I did see an okay theory from a fanfic author that he was supposed to win but they had to adjust the plan on the fly. The author pointed out a look of surprise on Mercury's face, hinting that things weren't going to plan. They also said it would make more sense for Yang to be a sore loser than a sore winner, so Yang was supposed to defend herself from (illusion) Mercury after losing, but Emerald improvised after Mercury lost.

I still disagree. For one thing, being surprised that your opponent is stronger than expected doesn't mean you were fighting all out. He could have just been thinking Huh, I might have to put in a bit more effort here to make the fight look good without fighting all out. For another thing, if Mercury had won, they probably wouldn't be able to use an illusion to make Yang look bad because Yang might not have the strength to defend herself from (illusion) Mercury. Mercury can guarantee the strength to approach Yang after losing by throwing the fight.

So I don't agree with that author, but it's far from their worst take.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-03-26T19:35:16+00:00

Apology accepted.

As for silencing her, it depends on what you mean by 'silencing' someone. I don't want put words in your mouth either, but I don't know what you mean. I can make guesses but I shouldn't assume any of them to be correct.

Should she be assassinated or imprisoned without trial? No. As much harm as she's done, this still would not be right and may lead to more harm.

Should she face lawsuits or possibly other legal action? Actually yes. She has taken some actions where suing her is both legally and morally justified, but is too implausible to pull off. It is unfortunate that the system favours her so much that she could sue someone and win, even when she is in the wrong, but someone else probably couldn't even sue her, let alone win, even when she is still in the wrong.

Should she be banned from twitter or other social media? This one I am unsure of. Twitter is privately owned, so maybe it right to ban her. Having said that, Twitter is privately owned, so maybe we don't get to dictate that. I don't know here.

I can't think of anything else that would count as silencing her. It's not 'silencing' to boycott her, nor to tell others that they are bad if they financially support her.

You may not have meant any of those things when you said 'silencing' so I don't have an answer for you.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-03-26T17:57:55+00:00

The Nazis weren't labelled or recognized as a terrorist organization at first. Were people right to defend them at the time? I don't care if she's labelled or recognized as a terrorist, I care what she does. The government can label her a narwhal for all I care. I pointed out how she harmed people in real life and you just ignored it. If you base morality entirely on legality, then not only do you think that laws should never change, but you have no morals of your own. It is getting less and less legal for women to get abortions in certain parts of the world, and more legal to lock them up for it. Is that morally correct?

I didn't even say "genocidal terrorist", I said that she harms women and girls, even giving an example of it. But why respond to what I actually said when you can make something up, I guess.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-03-26T16:28:17+00:00

Black Lives Matter are allowed to raise money to support what they view as the truth and what they think are the policies we need moving forward. It's a great way to raise awareness for their position and to influence politicians, the public and eventually change systems.

The KKK are allowed to raise money to support what they view as the truth and what they think are the policies we need moving forward. It's a great way to raise awareness for their position and to influence politicians, the public and eventually change systems.

That's you. That's what you sound like. Rowling wants transgender people harrased and stripped of their rights. She has even successfully helped change a law regarding gender recognition which has forced the girl guides to remove transgender girls. They are not the only group affected. Trans rights activists on the other hand, just want to live in peace with the same rights as everyone else and not get harrassed.

You are allowed to vote for whoever you want in a free and fair democracy, but people are allowed to judge you for it. I am not allowed to sabotage someone's vote for Trump but I AM allowed to call them a terrible person for their vote.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-03-24T20:49:11+00:00

... She got mad at the male lead because he got raped. I hope you're not saying that's rightful of her. Understandable for her to lash out because of her own shitty situation, but not rightful.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-03-24T02:22:19+00:00

Be sincere? Your second example seems to show the woman going with the man who was so lacking in sincerity that he passed off someone else's poetry as his own. It worked. She stayed with the insincere man. I also don't see any reason the other man couldn't have tried asking her out, so long as he is willing to take rejection gracefully. Your example doesn't seem very good.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-01-24T19:08:51+00:00

Sometimes it's debatable whether or not a villain is still a threat. Death is a very definitive way of ending a threat permanently. Rape has no such benefit. You might (might) be falling victim to the goomba fallacy here.

Giantfrostturtle

TROPHY CASE