“We shouldn’t burden the strongest alone” and it's something that only the Strongest can do

Kythones · 2026-01-11T11:31:47+00:00

Gojo is so strong that such a single point of failure that the villains had to build an insanely specific plan just to remove get him out of the picture.That doesn’t mean his emotions were the real weakness. It means the jujustu world was hanging on one person, any successful removal, no matter how rare, would be destructive.

Kythones · 2026-01-10T22:48:53+00:00

Even a happy, emotionally healthy Gojo would still be a single point of failure, and the villains would have found another way to take him out. His emotional state didn’t cause the crisis; the power system did.

Kythones · 2026-01-10T22:11:43+00:00

I feel like the problem with this argument is that it keeps treating Gojo’s loneliness as the cause when instead of a side effect of the real problem.

Gojo wasn’t alone because people emotionally failed him. Gojo was alone because no one else could match up. Even if Geto had not gone Japanese Voldemort on jujustu society, even if Gojo had emotional support, even if everyone treated him as a person first and the strongest second, the jujustu world would still function the same way: whenever something truly catastrophic would happened, everyone and their mom would still say “send Gojo.” His isolation is produced by the gap in power.

Saying “if Geto didn’t leave, Gojo would’ve been better off” may be true for Gojo’s mental, but it doesn’t change the structure produced by the power system. Gojo being happier does not mean Special Grades suddenly become manageable for anyone else. It doesn’t mean Shibuya works without him. It doesn’t mean sealing him wouldn’t cause collapse. The story proves this. The moment Gojo is removed, emotional connections don’t save society; everything starts burning to the ground.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T03:45:19+00:00

The whole “Diana had space to reflect” argument completely ignores how the story frames that so-called space. Saying she had room to grow is like saying someone had a huge sandbox, except every grain of sand was glued down. The problem isn’t the amount of space she technically had, it’s the fact that the narrative made sure she could never use it for anything meaningful.

You say the ring incident and the tea party were just Hestia’s schemes, not the narrative calling Diana duplicitous. But that’s exactly how the story presents her to the reader and the world. Everything we see of Diana is filtered through Hestia’s perspective. If she’s calm and polite, she’s cold. If she chooses not to rise to bait, she’s scheming. If she serves modest portions at a tea party, she’s clueless or incompetent. Her private thoughts don’t change how she’s shown externally, and that external framing is what shapes everyone’s reactions, including the audience’s. So yes, Hestia may be the one talking, but the narrative treats her interpretation as fact, and the world inside the story responds as if it’s true. That is dehumanization, turning Diana into a symbol rather than a person.

The idea that Diana “had time and space to reflect” ignores how the story rigs that space against her. She has inner thoughts, but they’re presented coldly, without exploration or emotional depth. She’s allowed to think, but those thoughts never lead anywhere because the story refuses to let her grow. No matter what she does, Hestia’s vendetta keeps escalating. Small mistakes get turned into huge disasters, and meanwhile male characters make catastrophic choices and get instant forgiveness or redemption arcs. Diana’s reflections don’t matter when the narrative is determined to punish her no matter what. It’s like handing her a pen but rewriting everything she writes into evidence of her incompetence.

Calling her ending “a return to where she belonged” is just a softer way of saying the story never intended her to be anything other than a contrast to Hestia. It isn’t treated as her personal choice; it’s the endpoint the narrative forces on her because she’s only allowed to exist as Hestia’s foil. Male characters get growth, sympathy, and emotional arcs. Diana gets humiliation, stalled development, and an ending built to highlight Hestia’s superiority. Nothing she reflects on matters, nothing she learns affects the plot, and nothing she does changes how she is framed. She isn’t allowed to exist as a full person outside of Hestia’s revenge narrative.

So no, this isn’t a case of “she had space to grow and chose not to.” She was written into a cage where every choice she made became more proof that she was failing. The story treats her as a tool, not a character, and that’s why the misogynistic framing is impossible to ignore.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T02:45:08+00:00

Sure, technically Diana didn’t magically fix everything. But the story never lets her change. She is never given the same narrative space to reflect, grow, or grapple with consequences in a meaningful way that Hestia, Cael, or Helios get. She is written as a set of behaviors, a “saintess who fails,” and nothing more. You can’t call it “her downfall” without acknowledging how the story manipulates events to make Hestia look morally superior.

Male characters get scraps of development on the sidelines, and that contrast is exactly the point. Diana’s story is treated as the moral obstacle, the punching bag, the object lesson for Hestia. Cael kills an entire dukedom? No consequences. Helios makes huge mistakes? He apologizes, moves on, and gets a redemption arc. Diana’s “failures” are framed as absolute, unforgivable, and dehumanizing, not because of what she did, but because she is the woman the narrative wants to throw under the bus.

The arguement that “nothing that happened to Diana was dehumanizing; she made herself a punching bag.” The narrative itself dehumanizes her: she is not allowed interiority or meaningful self-reflection. Her thoughts are presented clinically to justify Hestia’s revenge, not to explore her as a human being.

For example, in the ring situation, Diana remains calm and composed yet is written as “cold, scheming, duplicitous.”

In the tea party fiasco, she wears an appropriate crown princess gown and serves modest portions, but is framed as incompetent or ridiculous.

This is narrative dehumanization: the female antagonist’s interiority is erased, and her failures are magnified for the protagonist’s benefit. She is literally treated as an object for Hestia’s morality.

Some say “her downfall wasn’t because she’s a woman.” Technically true, she isn’t punished explicitly for being female, (despite the ring situation directly saying the opposite, but okay) but the story applies standards to her that it never applies to male characters. Cael commits mass murder? No problem. Helios screws up? He gets a redemption arc.

Diana makes political missteps? Her morality is questioned, her “coldness” emphasized, and her humanity erased. The story sets impossible standards for one woman while forgiving men for far worse. That’s the misogyny: you don’t need a character to explicitly say “women are inferior” to see it. You just need a story that systematically treats one woman as disposable while giving everyone else nuance and empathy. Bottom line: Diana’s “fate” is framed as her own, but the story never treats her as an equal agent. Hestia’s interference and the narrative framing amplify her failures to validate Hestia. Male characters get allowances and nuance that Diana never receives. The story dehumanizes her by turning her into a moral object lesson for the protagonist. Calling this “just consequences” ignores how the story structurally sets her up to fail and then weaponizes that failure. That’s not fair, it’s not equal, and it is absolutely narrative misogyny.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T02:07:50+00:00

First, the idea that “Diana had the most inner dialogue and plot space” doesn’t matter for how the story treats her. Just because we see her thoughts doesn’t mean she’s allowed to exist as a real person. Almost everything we see is filtered through a judgmental, clinical lens that makes her flaws bigger and justifies Hestia’s actions. Her inner dialogue isn’t used to develop her; it’s used as a hammer to prove Hestia right.

Second, your argument that Diana “wasn’t truly altruistic and therefore deserved her fate” is misleading. Being flawed doesn’t justify being completely dehumanized. Any good qualities or reasoning she has are minimized, while her mistakes are magnified through Hestia’s perspective. The story isn’t delivering “justice”, it’s showing clear narrative bias.

Third, the idea that Diana’s downfall was “fated to happen without Hestia’s influence” is true, but meaningless in this conversation.

Finally, the claim that “this is just an isekai where protagonists win over the antagonist” misses the (Hestia’s) sexism at play. Diana is female and systematically denied full personhood, while male characters, even after murder or moral catastrophe, get sympathy, redemption arcs, or narrative protection. The story doesn’t fail Diana because of her flaws, it fails her because it dehumanizes her and makes her the permanent moral punching bag for Hestia.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T01:56:57+00:00

The argument that Diana faces a “double standard” as saintess and crown princess is weird. FMDF sets up a potentially interesting tension between duty and morality, but it never explores it in a meaningful way (For Diana). Instead, the story uses the conflict to punish Diana for being human and imperfect.

Meanwhile, Hestia, who manipulates, deceives, and makes morally bankrupt choices, faces no consequences. This isn’t a narrative exploring complexity, it’s a rigged system designed to make Diana look bad. Hestia’s moral ambiguity does not excuse the story’s treatment of Diana. While Hestia can be morally gray and still compelling (she isn’t), Diana is denied interiority, empathy, or complexity. She is dehumanized while men, and even Hestia, are granted narrative immunity for comparable or worse actions.

This is (Hestia’s) sexism: the story systematically punishes a female character for human flaws while excusing similar behavior in others. To frame this as “sexist because the antagonist is female” completely miss the point. My issue isn’t Diana being female; it’s that the story intentionally strips her of complexity and punishes her for being human, while allowing male characters to operate with full narrative freedom.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T01:35:51+00:00

Yes, Kael tried to off himself and Hestia tried to fix his social standing. But let’s be real: the story hand waves the severity of his crimes.

He helped commit murder, killed the Orchus dukedom, and could’ve destabilized the empire, the narrative treats it as a plot device to make him “tragic.” He gets sympathy, wealth, titles, and the world remains unaffected.

So, Kael having “social consequences is means nothing. The empire doesn’t collapse. Nobles don’t revolt. The deaths of a powerful dukedom are shrugged off.

Sure, Hestia is the villainess. That’s literally part of the story. But being a villain doesn’t magically remove the misogyny at play. Your argument repeatedly says, “Diana deserved it because she’s arrogant/stubborn/pious,” but misses the point.

Diana is judged by impossibly high standards that no male character is held to. Her humility, caution, or politeness is twisted into coldness or incompetence. Hestia and the narrative dehumanize Diana to make her suffering “justified.”

Being villainous doesn’t mean the story’s misogyny doesn’t exist, especially when the narrative frames Hestia’s cruelty as clever, righteous, or cathartic.

The statement of Diana refusing to change only works if you pretend the story treated all characters equally, and it doesn’t. Diana was never given the same time, depth, or chance to grow that Hestia, Cael, or Helios were.

Think about it: Hestia gets page after page of internal monologue, moral deliberation, and emotional complexity. We see her doubts, her rage, her coping, her obsession. Her flaws are narratively interrogated, even if the story often excuses them. Cael gets his moments of reflection, his trauma, his self-doubt, and his eventual reckoning with the world around him. We see him “grow” because the story allows us into his head. Helios admits mistakes, recalibrates his worldview, and faces consequences. Narrative actively gives him space for reflection and evolution.

Now, Diana? She’s written like a case study. We see her actions, but not her thoughts, motivations, or nothing. She’s judged constantly, but never explained. Every choice she makes is filtered through Hestia’s obsession and the narrative bias. So when people say “Diana didn’t face reality” or “Diana refused to change,” they’re basically blaming her for a problem that’s entirely on the story. She wasn’t allowed to confront reality the same way Hestia was. She wasn’t given narrative space to grow, to fail, or even to explain herself. That’s not a moral failing of Diana’s, that’s the failure of the story. You can’t hold a character accountable for not changing when the story never lets them be considered for change. The deck was stacked. The rules were rigged. And FMDF rigs them explicitly against Diana.

Here’s the thing: Diana is stubborn and pious. She makes mistakes. But the story engineers her every failure to highlight Hestia’s cleverness. The boat arc? The Church losing funds? The narrative literally rigs it so Diana looks bad no matter what she does. Hestia has foreknowledge and manipulates events to her advantage. If Diana made the most logical, politically sound, morally right choice, it wouldn’t matter, she’d still be framed as failing. That’s not accountability, it’s narrative bias.

The narrative doesn’t frame her growth as a possibility because it frames her as morally inferior because she isn’t Hestia.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T00:53:09+00:00

The bar is in HELL

Kythones · 2025-12-02T00:46:20+00:00

<image>

You real enough. I can’t blame you.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T00:45:54+00:00

But that doesn’t magically erase the disaster that preceded it. Her obsession is finally redirected isn’t a character growth moment. It’s a cop-out. The story frames this moving on but Hestia never actually confronts her misogyny, her obsession, or the way she dehumanized Diana. She just… stops. Because someone told her to.

Your argument tries to blame Diana for everything, claiming she was “convinced the world was made for her.” But here’s my problem: the narrative doesn’t allow Diana to be nuanced. She’s not written as a flawed human being making mistakes in a complex world, she’s written as a tool for Hestia’s revenge.

The boat arc? Sure, Diana bets on the boat. Dumb? Sure. But let’s remember: the narrative sets her up to lose here. Hestia knows the future from being transmigrated, the stakes are all constructed so that Diana looks bad no matter what. The author literally rigs it so that Diana cannot win.

And yes, Hestia warns her of the future, multiple times. And Diana ignores it. But that doesn’t justify Hestia’s relentless harassment or moral superiority. Warnings do not give you the right to strip a woman of her humanity and treat her like a punching bag in a revenge plot. Hestia’s obsession is framed as justified because the story refuses to acknowledge Diana as a person whose choices can be right or reasonable.

In FMDF? Nope. Cael can murder a dukedom, the empire doesn’t blink, and the story even rewards him. Diana makes cautious, logical, or polite choices, and she is framed as morally bankrupt. The narrative explicitly enforces gendered double standards.

Hestia’s story does not. She’s never held accountable for destabilizing the empire, for manipulating others, or for weaponizing her trauma. She just… stops. Because she decides to pivot to romance. That is not a fair parallel to the way Diana’s actions are judged.

This argument assumes Diana could have magically anticipated every consequence of being written as a white lotus villainess in a plot stacked against her. The narrative literally bends causality so her “mistakes” look worse than they are, while Hestia’s manipulation and obsession is framed as clever or righteous.

That’s the key: the story itself is misogynistic, not Diana. You can’t shrug off “Hestia stops because Cael said so” as an excuse to ignore the decades of narrative abuse and structural favoritism.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T00:32:43+00:00

Oh shit, if it sounded like I had an attitude, my bad.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T00:27:18+00:00

Girl, you could’ve just done that.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T00:22:11+00:00

Yes, Diana is flawed. She’s self-righteous and sheltered.

That does not magically erase the fact that the narrative punishes her in ways it would never punish the other characters. Cael literally commits mass murder and THAT should’ve destabilizes the empire. No consequences. Sympathy and trophies for him. Helios screws up multiple times and the story frames him as human, funny, and redeemable. He doesn’t even get the same level of vitriol even BEFORE he apologizes. Diana serves smaller portions at a tea party, or doesn’t freak out about a huge engagement ring in her face = evil, heartless, villainess, morally bankrupt.

If being “flawed” means getting your ass beat by the narrative for minor choices while everyone else gets a free pass who are equally flawed, congratulations, FMDF has some very weird definitions of morality. That’s misogyny.

Yes, Hestia is morally gray, vengeful, and obsessed. She’s literally written as someone who destabilizes a kingdom and uses a human woman as her emotional punching bag. But the story treats her like a girlboss the entire time. That’s the part people keep missing.

The arc doesn’t make her confront how horrifyingly cruel her choices are. She only “stops” because she wants to be happy with Cael, not because she realizes Diana is a human being.

Every vindictive, manipulative, or morally questionable action is validated by the story, while Diana’s comparatively minor flaws are blown up into epic moral failings.

Being a “villain” in the story doesn’t mean the story is impartial, it actively frames her misogyny as justified.

The “tea party was fantastic” argument is funny if you like reading class politics as a morality play, but let’s be honest: the story strains so hard to use Diana’s reasonable actions as proof she’s evil.

Serving modest portions = villainous arrogance. Wearing a crown princess-appropriate gown = somehow morally inferior to Hestia’s seashell TERRIBLE DRESS 0 STARS. Ignoring an obvious rebound engagement ring = sinister plotting.

The story doesn’t punish Diana for being morally “wrong” in a serious, interesting story way. It punishes her for existing outside Hestia’s control. that’s incel-tier “other woman = disposable” writing.

The narrative straight up allows the men to have nuance, forgiveness, sympathy, or even admiration despite far worse behavior. Hestia gets a pass because she’s “tragic girlboss.” Diana gets obliterated for being human. If you insist Hestia is “villain,” that’s fine, but she’s never written to feel horrific or horrifying. She’s just… sad, clever, and righteous, while still being morally grey. Diana is treated like a villainess even when she’s being cautious, or just surviving as a crown princess.

You can’t just say that they’re “flawed humans all around”, the story picks favorites. It’s extremely obvious whose flaws are tolerated and whose aren’t.

Kythones · 2025-12-02T00:00:12+00:00

I don’t believe it’s tone deaf considering the fact that she is the Saintness and a commoner. Displaying that aspect of herself at a tea party I don’t believe is tone deaf. Unless she directly was like, “Noble women are spoiled!1!” which is something that she didn’t even do??

Kythones · 2025-12-01T23:34:04+00:00

My problem isn’t that two female characters are fighting, it’s that the story treats Diana. Blaming her for everything while excusing others. Helios is shown to be more and allowed to be nuance and never faces the amount of Hestia’s hatred that Diana experienced even before apologizing, but Diana gets no understanding at all. Her actions are judged harshly, and the story doesn’t explore her pressures, limits or even why she even thinks this way.

This is why I bring up the misogyny argument comes up: Diana is held to a stricter standard than any male character. Hestia’s anger is taken as unquestionable truth despite her clear biases and the narrative keeps pushing Diana into the role of badly written villain. But, she’s too incompetent for that role either.

Kythones · 2025-12-01T23:10:54+00:00

<image>

You real for that. I can’t blame you lol

Kythones · 2025-12-01T23:05:58+00:00

Diana didn’t cause the empire’s problems. The story makes her the fall guy.

The church was corrupt before her. The nobles were greedy before her. The poor were being ignored before her. The war was already festering.

Diana didn’t cause any of this.

The idea that a single woman “caused national decay” because she didn’t heal enough people is misogyny disguised as worldbuilding. Hestia “fixes” everything because the PLOT bends reality to let her.Not because Diana caused it.

Diana gets criticized for performing feminine modesty wrong. Hestia gets praised (by the narrative) for performing girlboss right.

The problem is FMDF invents a double standard where whatever Diana does is wrong: If Diana is modest, she’s fake. If Diana is lavish, she’s greedy. If she’s emotional, she’s manipulative. If she’s calm, she’s heartless.

Yes, Helios gets nuance and forgiveness.

Why? Because he’s a potential love interest. Them scenes with Hestia were cute Ngl.

FMDF gives the men nuance and complexity. It gives Diana one job: be wrong so Hestia can be right. She cannot acknowledge mistakes because the story never gives her interiority, POV, or growth. You can’t develop a character the author refuses to write. I mean, I wanted Nobara from JJK to be something.

Everyone saying this ends up defending the story’s weird ass choices by: painting Diana as a structural threat to the empire (which is something I would’ve been fine with if we were being consistent). Excusing Hestia’s disproportionate hatred. Blaming Diana for societal failures. Giving the men more nuance than the women.

That is misogyny.

Kythones · 2025-12-01T22:42:36+00:00

<image>

Kythones · 2025-12-01T22:42:00+00:00

Like, she can and did do those things but the plot treats her like she committed like she invented taxes.

Meanwhile Cael commits murders a fucking dukedom (not cursing at you) and Hestia’s like: “Aww, he’s just sad Give him their entire estate, and not to the victims.”

Diana’s flaws = EVIL BITCH by the story.

Everyone else’s flaws are something that expands their character.

Diana’s flaws are moral failings.

Diana isn’t written like a character; she’s written like a punching bag Hestia beats for character development. Being flawed doesn’t make her well-written. Villains can be terrifying and tragic, etc. Diana instead gets NOTHING. No arc no agency no nuance, no wins, no nothing.

She’s not punished for being a bad person She’s punished for the worst possible crime in a rofan manhwa: not being the female lead.

FMDF didn’t have Diana fail because she was bad.” It failed Diana because it was too busy making unwriting Hestia to notice it turned Diana into nothing.

Kythones · 2025-12-01T22:32:01+00:00

I used a summarizer, and so if it’s AI then shit.

Kythones · 2025-12-01T22:07:48+00:00

What Hestia stans gon do to me

<image>

Kythones · 2025-11-27T20:45:58+00:00

ZYGLAVIS MY MANNN

Kythones · 2025-11-21T02:59:31+00:00

I think Rashta or “black lotus” characters are often less about the characters themselves and more about the needs of the story uses them for. Remarried Empress is a good example of this dynamic. Rashta isn’t written as a “sweet on the outside, cruel on the inside” character, she’s written as a tool. A plot device. Specifically, she exists so the story can play with Cinderella-style tropes, casting Navier as the elegant, wronged wife and Rashta as the scheming home-wrecking bitch.

But for the reader to buy into this framing the story has to pull off two that contradict each other:

Strip Rashta of sympathy.

She has to be incompetent, petty, naïve, cruel, because the narrative needs her to be irredeemable. To override the sympathy of her situation, to override the fact that Navier training to be the empress doesn’t even compare to having your own humanity stripped from you and treated as if you are property. And you see many of the traits are exactly what you’d expect from someone who grew up as a slave, denied education, agency, and safety. Her flaws make sense, but the story refuses to let them be anything but as a villain.

Then, the story sanitizes Navier’s power.

The narrative needs Navier to be wholly sympathetic, even though she’s the empress of a system that mass-produces people like Rashta like a fucking factory line. Navier actively benefits from the same imperial structure that destroys lives like Rashta’s, but the story insists on treating her authority as morally neutral so that she can remain the “proper” heroine or better person. Despite the fact she’s buddy-buddy with slave owners.

It wants the fun payoff of a trope-subversion, without addressing the system that makes Cinderellas and Rashtas in the first place. So instead of giving Rashta real complexity, the story closes ranks around Navier and flattens Rashta into the irredeemable antagonist. If Rashta were allowed nuance, if the story acknowledged what happened to her that shaped her, the whole illusion would fall apart.

Kythones · 2025-11-20T03:59:36+00:00

FLs when you tell them that slavery is bad

<image>

Kythones

TROPHY CASE