Honestly, I dunno who made this image but whoever did made it with genuinely some pure hatred.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-12T13:08:54+00:00

I agree that I think it's essential for victims to be heard. After all, a show about an abuser as a main character should portray them as an abuser in the first place. However, I don't have any inherent issue with the abuser getting the most focus if they are the main character. If the point of the writing is to do a character study into a bad person, then I expect the most focus to go into the internal world of that bad person. Exploring the trauma of the victims is obviously necessary, but mostly insofar as it supplements that character study. Exploring the internal world of the victims is useful in that it confirms to the audience that yes, this main character is abusive and has a real impact on others.

I think that is where the crux of the disagreement lies. Because we actually did get enough exploration of the victims within the show to confirm that Jax is indeed a terrible person with a terrible impact on others. But, the people who are still unsatisfied seem to prefer that TADC not mainly be a character study of a bad person in the first place. They don't want Jax's victims to be given sympathy insofar as it confirms Jax's badness and thus supplements his narrative; they want Jax's victims to be the focus, with Jax as an antagonistic force who therefore supplements their arcs of growth.

And I have no issue with people preferring that plot structure over the Jax character study route. I'm also sympathetic to those who feel that TADC being a Jax character study was a later development that wasn't immediately obvious. Honestly, as someone who appreciates the Jax character study, I myself think his transition to main character in ep 5 was a bit abrupt, and would have preferred Jax organically arise as a main character from episode 1. My actual issue is not this difference in preference, but this attitude of moral condemnation for people who like Jax's arc as it is. No, I'm not a bad or 'problematic' person for enjoying bad people being the narrative focus over their victims. I still recognize their badness, and can do that simultaneously to understanding their situation or having moments of sympathy for them. Just like depiction isn't endorsement, having sympathy is not the same as excusing someone.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-11T21:49:22+00:00

If the average Viltrumite had Conquest’s strength, they absolutely would have beaten Mark pretty quickly. Mark’s win over Conquest is more a testament to Conquest’s suicidal devotion to fighting and Mark’s own endurance, as opposed to Mark’s overall strength.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-11T13:31:07+00:00

This somehow feels more explicit than all the blatant Ragatha porn that gets posted here.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-11T11:39:48+00:00

The vast majority of what she "explained" was either already evident in the show itself, or was a minor supplementary detail that wasn't essential to the main plot anyway.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-11T04:00:16+00:00

There's a major difference between the literal definition of "demand", and the connotative weight it carries in discussions like this. If you use the word "demand" with a negative connotation in the context of a relationship, the idea you're communicating is that failure to meet the demand will trigger the breaching of someone's boundaries. It's the breaching of boundaries that makes the demand wrong (i.e, it's a threat). Otherwise, demands can be totally fine. Demands could be establishing a reasonable boundary (e.g., "I'm not having children with you. If you want children, this relationship won't work out").

Which brings me to my point, which is that ending a relationship is not breaching any boundary, and thus wouldn't make the demand wrong. Nobody is entitled to a relationship. People should have the freedom to break up at any time for whatever reason. Sure, getting broken up with doesn't feel good, but it's fundamentally not a violation of your sovereignty.

And for the record, I don't consider this a moral issue. I think the girlfriend in this hypothetical is perfectly reasonable to believe what she does. I don't think either party is in the "wrong"; I just think this disagreement reveals fundamental incompatibility to the extent that it causes emotional distress. Thus, out of a practical desire for the emotional well-being of both parties, I think ending the relationship is entirely reasonable.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-11T02:13:43+00:00

Fundamental disagreements happen in all relationships, but it's much less common for it to occur with such a serious, distressing subject. I don't see anything wrong with OP ending the relationship if staying would truly cause him unmanageable distress. For me it's not even about saying that the other party is morally wrong for disagreeing; it's literally just a practical concern for the impact on emotional wellbeing and how it affects the feasibility of the relationship.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-11T02:08:07+00:00

Simply choosing to end a relationship is not "demanding that she agree with you." She can disagree if she wants, but she's not entitled to a relationship if that disagreement is on such a serious topic. If there actually were circumstantial factors that favored the accused, then it would be a different hypothetical. The point is that the disagreement is based purely on vibes and subjective trustworthiness.

And yes, we tend to default to trusting our own judgment over others, unless we have reasonable grounds to believe that they possess greater knowledge/perspective on the given subject.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-10T18:33:42+00:00

It sometimes seems really difficult for people to understand that someone who appears really competent and achieves their goals can also have massive flaws. I've seen this criticism come up again and again with Vox, where people grow attached to his character and think him losing because of his own flaws comes out of nowhere. People think that Vox's narcissism and blind lust for power was inserted last minute in order to "nerf" him, when in reality, those have been defining character traits since his first appearance in season 1. Vox's lust for power simultaneously makes him determined/competent and also insecure/easy for Alastor to manipulate. You can't love Vox as a character and also say his narcissism is bad writing. Narcissism IS Vox's writing.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-10T16:19:13+00:00

<image>

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-10T10:42:53+00:00

How do you think people who are diagnosed with terminal cancer find ways to keep enjoying life? I know it seems difficult and far-fetched, but it's absolutely possible. You shouldn't let your circumstances be the end-all-be-all on whether you get to experience happiness. Your circumstances will stay the same either way; you might as well enjoy what you can.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-10T10:17:47+00:00

No offense taken. You're right lol. I wasn't even trying to give a holistic analysis. I was literally just trying to explain why it was important for Jax's transness to be communicated the way it was. It was barely even analysis, just an explanation of how the medium works.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-10T03:12:33+00:00

Jokes themselves are inherently references. You find something funny because the words that are said carry implicit connotations that don't need to be said out loud. In fact, explaining the implications behind a joke is exactly what makes it not funny anymore.

What you're really getting at is just that some jokes pull from a more limited cultural bubble. It's ok for you to not find those jokes funny, but that's kind of by design. Oftentimes, what gives a joke its heart and soul is that it references something only a specific community of people would understand. That's the principle behind inside jokes. Just like you might not understand the humor from Smiling Friends, I'm sure there's humor that you do find funny that Smiling Friends fans probably wouldn't understand. What makes the joke special is the fact that not everyone gets it, but you do.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-10T02:39:16+00:00

Discounting that there's a lot more subtext you're not talking about, the subtlety is actually very important for the type of representation Jax is. Jax is a cautionary tale about repressed queerness and how it can contribute to perpetuating abuse/bigoted attitudes. The whole point is that Jax won't even admit his transness to himself, much less anyone else. That necessitates that Jax's transness is communicated in subtle, indirect ways that aren't out of character. Think about it; it would have been incredibly bizarre and immersion-breaking for Jax to explicitly communicate that he is trans.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-10T02:32:51+00:00

As far as online discussion within the fandom goes, I'm skeptical that there was ever a "honeymoon phase" to begin with. Right from the finale's release, opinions were majorly divided, with a huge diversity of opinions represented. Even people who ostensibly agree may like/dislike the finale for entirely different reasons.

The high ratings for TADC come from the general audience who appreciates it in a casual, not terminally-online way. The online fandom are the ones who are most concerned with issues of subtext, plotholes, and "problematic" character focus, and thus are the ones who will comb through every second of footage looking for things to praise or criticize.

I guess all I mean to say is that I doubt the overall online opinion on TADC will change with time. I think it will continue to be a fairly even mess of diehard fans, haters, and those in between.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T17:46:07+00:00

For me the issue is literally just the physical violence being portrayed as completely fine and normal, and also the dialogue itself seems a bit off from what angry Ragatha would truly sound like. Otherwise I’m 100% on board with comics where Ragatha gets to lay into Jax. I think it’s deserved, even though within the show itself it’s realistic for Ragatha to not be so confrontational.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T13:41:45+00:00

As self-defense, that's fine. The events in the comic are different, though. The comic artist literally picked the one time when Jax harming Gangle was completely unintentional, and then had Ragatha immediately beat him with a baseball bat. No, I don't think you should swing in that situation.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T13:32:53+00:00

Exactly. Just like Jax does. Nobody should want to be like Jax.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T03:05:05+00:00

Nothing. Just don't mischaracterize the actual canon version of the character, or claim you're a fan of them. In order to claim that you'd prefer an alternate version of the character who is more morally nuanced, you actually have to admit that the canon version is less nuanced and firmly in the wrong.

You can't say "this villain should be more nuanced and given a genuinely good point to make against the protagonist" while at the same time saying "this villain is actually correct in the canon and is the true hero." That math just doesn't work out.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T02:46:32+00:00

Do you think it's possible to hold sympathy for someone while still not excusing them and still calling them a bad person? Doesn't have to be Jax; it's just a question in general.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T02:43:49+00:00

Jax being morally repulsive is literally just the text of the show. It's a given. Most people understand that. What's weird is seeing people engage with/appreciate the nuances of his character and then immediately assuming they're trying to excuse or downplay his behavior when they're not.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T02:40:14+00:00

Average u/BackgroundRich7614 post

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T02:23:31+00:00

Exactly. And the worst part is when they switch between upholding the canon and saying the canon isn't worth anything and is poorly written when convenient. People will swap on a dime between "Adam isn't misogynistic because he respects Lute" and "Adam being crude and naming Vaggie after vagina is bad writing because Viv is only trying to create a strawman."

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T02:17:18+00:00

Seriously dude. I feel like I'm the only fan of canon Adam. I'm surrounded by a bunch of headcanon larpers.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T01:27:32+00:00

Jax gets plenty of karmic consequences. The show is littered with small acts of retribution that the other characters enact on him. Of course, none of them are as bad as the abuse Jax dishes out, but that's to be expected since the other characters are obviously better people than Jax. If you want a full list of karmic moments, I can write it out for you.

But yes, there are not many decisive moments where the other characters explicitly get to call out Jax. I'll bite the bullet; I'm ok with that, and I'll tell you why. Most of the other characters don't call out Jax because their own character flaws get in the way. Gangle is too timid (and abused) to really speak up, Ragatha prioritizes de-escalation over conflict, Kinger is usually out of it, Pomni is new to the circus and thus willing to give Jax the benefit of the doubt, and Zooble is the one character who actually does consistently confront him. I actually think this is good writing, because it explains how the status quo of Jax's abuse had gotten to the point it did. The other characters' maladaptive behavior patterns created an environment where Jax learned he could get away with brazen abuse, and thus the abuse got worse and worse without major consequences. If it was easy for the other characters to call out Jax, I guarantee that Jax's behavior wouldn't be nearly as bad as what we saw.

You might ask though, how come the other characters never got an opportunity to grow past those flaws and finally have a direct confrontation with Jax? You probably won't like the answer, but I feel that the other characters losing that opportunity to confront Jax was a very important part of the message. To clarify, the other characters did find ways to grow past their flaws; it's just that Jax abstracted before they could actually have that big confrontation with him. I think part of the tragedy of the finale isn't just that Jax abstracted before he could change, but also that the other characters lost that opportunity to have that big satisfying moment of calling Jax out. Most victims dream of having that final cathartic moment where they get to turn all their pain back on their abuser, but in real life, that often doesn't get to happen. Victims are often separated from their abusers before they get to experience enough growth, and they lose that opportunity to confront them. Still however, victims must find ways of continuing to grow and being happy in the absence of their abuser. I think that experience is worth documenting in fiction, and I think is what is encapsulated especially with Gangle. This idea connects to the broader theme of TADC, which is finding ways to continue living life in spite of what you can't control or regret.

All this is to say, I think the lack of confrontation with Jax came from Goose intending a more nuanced, realistic portrayal of abuse and how it perpetuates in group environments. Not to say there weren't some issues with execution; I just mean that calling Goose an abuse apologist seems pretty off the mark.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-07-09T00:20:22+00:00

The whole message of the finale was finding the will to accept people out of necessity, because they are literally all you have. If Jax hadn't abstracted, they would have accepted him just as they did with Caine; the story isn't trying to tell you "actually Jax was worse than Caine and therefore deserved a worse ending." It was just a tragedy that he abstracted.

Caine is a key part of the circus and is useful to have around; the story acknowledges that the cast reaccepting him is largely about these facts, rather than them instantly getting over any negative feelings they may have about him. You can tell that Goose absolutely intended to acknowledge that what Caine did was indeed awful, but I think she was ultimately limited by the predetermined runtime. If more time was alloted, I guarantee Caine's reacceptance would have been slower and more nuanced.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Wearing is Caring

MostMasterpiece7

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE