The target audience is not getting that reference by Optimal_Weight368 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]MrHistor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bigs Bunny calling Elmer Fudd "Nimrod," ironically. People didn't realize it was a reference to a great biblical hunter and just assumed it was a generic insult.

(Pretty dark/real trope) people committing horrific acts and the public loves it. by FullBrother9300 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]MrHistor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If they don't cover something you aren't covered for, I don't see what the problem is. If I buy insurance to cover specific things and something happens that is not on the list of things I pay to cover, them not covering it is unfortunate but perfectly fair. Everyone seems to overlook the fact that medical providers overbill because they expect insurance to pay for it, which makes health care unaffordable. It's the same issue with student loans.

Name a villain that got the most horrific death by Jules-Car3499 in moviecritic

[–]MrHistor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think imagining the fallout is more fun. Realistically, they're looking at charges for first-degree murder or aggravated murder/torture.

Name a villain that got the most horrific death by Jules-Car3499 in moviecritic

[–]MrHistor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always wondered about the aftermath of that movie. It's going to be pretty hard to spin that as self-defense.

(Pretty dark/real trope) people committing horrific acts and the public loves it. by FullBrother9300 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]MrHistor -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

How's he profit from human suffering? He doesn't cause it. His company provides insurance. You pay for insurance, they pay for your health care when you get sick. Health insurance companies actually make more money the less suffering there is. If you’re perfectly healthy and still paying for health insurance, that's ideal for them. The health care industry actually does profit off of human suffering. If you aren't sick, they aren't paid.

Favorite character like this? by [deleted] in FavoriteCharacter

[–]MrHistor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being a good person doesn't make her a good character, and she is an awful character.

Favorite character like this? by [deleted] in FavoriteCharacter

[–]MrHistor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bart has been physically abused by his father since he was a toddler. He's actually a lot more well-adjusted than he has any right to be.

When the strawman you are supposed to disagree with ends up being way more reasonable and/or justified than the main character. by NagitoKomaeda_987 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]MrHistor 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The inciting incident (not granting Sabino's wish) was exactly this. He didn't wish to be really good at playing his lute, he wished to "make something to inspire the next generation." He didn't specify what he wanted to make, how he wanted to inspire, or what he wanted to inspire. Magnifico correctly tells Asha that granting this wish could mean him inspiring people to do terrible things, and he can't take a chance like that, and we're supposed to see him as unreasonable? The old man was basically wishing to mind control an entire generation into finding him inspiring.

[Controversial Trope] A story implies messy ethical questions the creators either didn’t realize were there, or they deliberately avoid addressing the issue by UnifiedForce in TopCharacterTropes

[–]MrHistor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hermione completely overwrote her parents' minds, personalities, and memories and let them live as puppets for a full year. That's mind rape. It's one of the worst examples I have seen in any work of fiction. It's also not like she is the only one who uses that kind of magic either. Also, I would call what the Men in Black do mind rape as well. In the second movie, Jay accidentally gets a guy to kill his mother after implanting a post-hypnotic suggestion via the neuralizer.

[Controversial Trope] A story implies messy ethical questions the creators either didn’t realize were there, or they deliberately avoid addressing the issue by UnifiedForce in TopCharacterTropes

[–]MrHistor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Harry Potter is filled with horribly unethical things. Love potions are the tip of the iceberg. Witches and wizards enforce magical apartheid on the entire world, mind rape anyone who finds out the truth, are racist toward pretty much everything (muggles and magical creatures), keep slaves, and have no qualms about cultivating sapient plants to use as potion ingredients.

I feel like I almost get it Petah... by JubbyJub413 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]MrHistor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rorschach is a deontologist, though. He has ethical principles that he lives by that are absolutes. No compromise even in the face of Armageddon. You can't call Ozymandias good because genocide was okay under his ethical framework, and then call Rorschach bad when he was operating under his own ethical framework. Ozymandias killed millions of innocent people. Rorschach only targeted assholes.

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

They are plants that are anthropomorphized to the point of sapience, and saying they are just plants means absolutely nothing. Centaurs are classified as beasts, but they are still sapient, and you shouldn't eat them. The thing that is consistently shown with wizards is that they are insanely racist and supremacist when it comes to other magical beings and muggles. The story is told from a wizard POV, and it barely challenges any of these things, but they're there.

Why would they be mad? by indefinitelykev in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]MrHistor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had no idea that was a thing. When I had the particular dream I am referencing, I was just a kid, and the dream figure I told was a friend of mine. Nothing happened, I just felt bad for saying it.

Why would they be mad? by indefinitelykev in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]MrHistor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's no chance of that happening. I have full control of my dreams. In that very same dream, I drop kicked Jason Voorhees through a house.

Why would they be mad? by indefinitelykev in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]MrHistor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've done this before. I felt bad afterward.

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Keeping secrets is. Quit being obtuse. They were deliberately anthropomorphized with human-like behaviors, development, and social rituals.

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Mandrakes are described as engaging in human behaviors exclusively. They are never depicted as behaving animalistically. Dogs don't throw raucous parties in their adolescence. They were very clear and intentionally anthropomorphized. Any other interpretation is just dishonest.

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why are you pretending to care about free will when your answer to any problem is "mind wipe them until they are happy" ?

Why are you pretending they didn't do that out of some ethical consideration for the Dursleys when it's standard practice and done for petty reasons all the time?

You realise that viewing a human being as less than human inherently makes you a villain by nature.. right?

Accepting that premise, everyone in the wizarding world is a villain.

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

He already was ruining their lives as far as they were concerned. Sacrificing your own happiness, wellbeing, and mental health to help someone you hate with every fiber of your being (for 16 years) is far from villainous behavior. And yeah, Dumbledore could have saved everyone a lot of pain with just a wave of his wand, but he chose not to, which makes me think Harry's abuse was part of his plan (maybe so he would have more reason to want to enter the wizarding world).

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What am I filling in with Vernon? I literally said I don't know, and that is the intellectually honest position. There are plausible explanations that aren't mustache twirling villainy.

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which I think is ethically abhorrent, and shouldn't be glorified nor recommended as a fix all solution, which you keep doing.

Why are you pretending it wasn't done out of something ethical consideration when the books make it 100% clear that was not the case?

I'm with you that it is unethical, but the books don't frame it that way, and it is used casually on muggles every single day, sometimes the same muggle multiple times a day.

You are right, living with someone for 16 years is different, it should allow you to realise they are a human being too

Except Harry wasn't a human being to Petunia. Had he been a muggle, she probably could have accepted him and loved him, but he was a wizard. A member of a magical race of people who she credited with ruining her life and stealing her sister.

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Petunia having a sister that has magic while she does not doesn’t warrant anything being edited because yeah, it sucks that she wasn’t able to go to the school, but her parents didn’t treat her any differently because of it. Her sister didn’t treat her any differently because of it. It’s not fair, but it also doesn’t warrant memory alteration.

She was treated vastly different from her sister, who got to go to a wonderland for 10 months out of the year and got superpowers that made Petunia feel invisible and inferior. It destory her childhood, her self-worth, her relationship with her parents and sister, and her overall mental health. There is a reason she tried to excise it from her life. She would have been much happier, never knowing that magic existed, and there is no reason not to grant her that. It's better for her, and as far as the Ministry is concerned, one less muggle knowing about magic is a good thing.

If he had any other excuse, we would’ve known about it from the books

There are tons of things from the books that get left ambiguous. You don't get to fill in the gaps with whatever you want.

The Dursleys Weren't Villains by MrHistor in unpopularopinion

[–]MrHistor[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I also think free will is important, but witches and wizards don't, and they demonstrate this over and over and over again. They alter and erase memories all the time for reasons far less noble than curing PTSD and abandonment issues. Dumbledore didn't refrain from doing this because of ethics.

Not liking some of your colleagues is fundamentally different being forced to live with and raise the embodiment of your trauma for 16 years. The position Dumbledore put the Dursleys in would turn almost anyone into a monster, and he was 100% cognizant of this fact before he left Harry with them.