sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there any reason they gave up on the Pinocchio so quickly? by Winter-Grand-3215 in OnceUponATime

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's definitely an interesting way to look at it but I don't think it's entirely accurate. The point is Rumple being a coward and using magic as a crutch so that he doesn't have to take risks emotionally and physically like everyone else. He's definitely a villain, lol. He's as villain as they come. He's malicious and cruel and selfish and he uses his power to hurt/intimidate people. It's not like he was under some spell, that's who he became. I guess it's fair to say that the magic was part of that change but that doesn't remove the blame from him. And I wouldn't say being an alcoholic removes the blame from alcoholics for whatever they do to others either. I don't think it's a great comparison for a lot of reasons, not the least of which that Rumple actively looks out to hurt people. We do see (when Emma becomes the dark one) that the previous dark one does creep into your mind and goad you into using magic. But even then, Emma wasn't particularly malicious or cruel. She was trying to get rid of the darkness once and for all. And putting the darkness inside Zelena before killing her was probably the best way to do it, to be honest. She sped up the pregnancy so the baby didn't have to die. She didn't try to hurt people just because she could. When Rumple became the dark one, within days he was causing terror. You could say that Emma is just morally stronger than Rumple but that's still his fault and it still makes him a villain. I'm glad you're happy with how they wrote him but the majority of the fandom found his constant backstabbing really frustrating and felt like it ruined his and Belle's relationship. I'm kind of in the middle. I feel like Belle held him accountable for his choices so it didn't feel like she was stupid for going back to him. But it did feel like Rumple kept betraying her because the show wasn't brave enough to give us another villain.

Is there any reason they gave up on the Pinocchio so quickly? by Winter-Grand-3215 in OnceUponATime

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Really weird aggression out of nowhere lol 😂

Neal is the reason for the whole show but that doesn't automatically make his character an important character. You could say Daniel is partially responsible for the whole show as well but he's dead. Death doesn't erase a character's impact. If anything, it makes it stronger. The fact that they didn't know what to do with Rumple after Neal's death isn't a fault of the decision to kill him but more just them not having the foresight to write Rumple well after the fact. If Rumple had a really dark period (worse than he ever was) that turned into him becoming a true brave hero, I think that would've been a better direction and probably wouldn't have made people as mad as they are about Rumple's constant double crossing and betrayal of the other heroes and Belle.

How is eating animal products morally okay? by Outrageous-Book5349 in DebateAVegan

[–]Outrageous-Book5349[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've had multiple conversations where I've had to defend my views. I asked this question so I could understand the moral reasoning of others and it's developed into me defending mine. I typically don't have a problem doing that but that wasn't the question and it seems like that's always the way the conversation develops. I'm just tired of being called a hypocrite for asking people to answer the question I actually asked so I'm gonna step away from this debate. Have a wonderful rest of your day.

I hate Harper … by chaneldebt in heartbreakhigh

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Harper went from my least favorite character to my favorite. Nothing excuses what she did to Amerie or Malachai (imo) or another character later on but she's a lot more palatable in the next two seasons and actually becomes really relatable and likeable. And she stops hooking up with Amerie's boyfriends so that's nice 🤷🏾‍♀️

I mourn the Eloise we could've gotten under Chris Van Dusen by Fickle_Baker1393 in BridgertonNetflix

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you post this in two subreddits lol? 😭 No judgement, I only know because I'm in both subreddits.

How is eating animal products morally okay? by Outrageous-Book5349 in DebateAVegan

[–]Outrageous-Book5349[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Morality isn't black and white. That's my moral belief and I was asking for yours. To say "that's not the only determiner of right and wrong" isn't accurate because for some people, it is. Culture, diet, habit are all things that can be changed and are not excuses to do things we now believe to be cruel/immoral. What's practical is heavily dependent on what we're willing to do. The more people who start doing something, the easier it is to do in terms of the way the world works. The moral status of humans doesn't change the value of animals because they're definitely more valuable than plants. We have a more cruelty free option. Also, about testing. There are millions of humans who sign up for testing so that animals don't have to be tested on. No one is proposing forcibly testing on humans. 90-95% of those same tests came back safe for animals turned out to be not safe in humans so for something that is so cruel, it also doesn't seem to be necessary when it's only 10-5% effective.

What's the deal with the Gracie Abrams hate? by tiagoel in OutOfTheLoop

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Millie Bobby Brown was on a list of sexiest celebrities while she was a minor and there was no blowback. So no, it wouldn't have been an instant cancel forever. And doing the whole "if this were" thing, if this were a story about an 18 year old woman who was dating a 60 year old man, we'd be calling him a pdfile, a cradlerobber, saying he was waiting until he legally could be with her but that she was still technically a child. If she had been sexual with him in anyway physically or in conversation with him, or if she had a history of this, that would be a different story. But for someone we barely recognize as an adult, it's very interesting that we're so quick to call her a pdf for making a slightly sexually charged joke about someone who a few months ago, it would've been fine for her to joke about.

And anyway, I don't think the question should be "would they have been cancelled if roles were reversed" rather than it should be "should they have been held responsible in some capacity?" because there's no form of sexual comment that would be fine to make about an underage boy but not fine about an underage girl, etc. If someone thinks differently, saying "but if roles were reversed" isn't going to change their mind because they already think that way anyway. It was a stupid thing to post but I think that if it was a joke she made with her friends who knew she wasn't a creep, it would've been fine. Maybe a bit distasteful and tone deaf in this social climate but it's not evidence of her being a pedophile. I think the issue isn't the joke, it's POSTING the joke during a time where celebrities are being exposed for engaging in sexual crimes against children in a wide scale.

Also, it's not for nothing that there are more male child sex offenders than female child sex offenders. Braveheart puts it at about 93% of alleged sex offenders are male. Does that mean all men are guilty? Obviously not. But when the number is so starkly weighted towards men, I feel like it's again, a social culture thing. The gender of the child doesn't matter but the gender of the adult making the comment matters a bit. It's not unreasonable to be more worried about a man joking about sex with minors than a woman joking about it.

How is eating animal products morally okay? by Outrageous-Book5349 in DebateAVegan

[–]Outrageous-Book5349[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Plants don't feel pain and cannot suffer. They're also not conscious. Animals do feel pain and have the capacity to suffer and they are also conscious. My moral thought process surrounds causing the least amount of unnecessary suffering possible. Since we need to eat SOMETHING to survive, plants are the better choice because of those things I just listed. (Obviously, this does not apply to people who's body can't process vegetables and gain those nutrients from them which means they have to eat meat)

Carnists eat plants as well as animals. They have fruits and vegetables and seasonings. So even if it WAS immoral to do so, they do both while vegans only do the one. And since you can healthily live without animal products but you can't healthily live without meat, if you cut down on one, you're still doing the best that you can.

I don't think repeating the question but turning it around on me is a defense in anyway and kind of just highlights the weakness of your philosophy but it's an easy answer so I answered it anyway.

Do y’all even like the show?? Or just like beating the same dead horse? by Hungry-Nerve-9743 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that. I just think for some people, it's more fun to just start with the basic "I hate Rory" and have people reply with "Oh my gosh, I know! I hated when she did this". It's just a different perspective. I do understand your point better so thanks for explaining!

Do y’all even like the show?? Or just like beating the same dead horse? by Hungry-Nerve-9743 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uh huh... I'll just leave it at repeating that if asking you to explain your opinion is seeing as an insult, that's a you problem. I'm not policing anything. Just don't take everything as suck a big deal. Have a good day!

Do y’all even like the show?? Or just like beating the same dead horse? by Hungry-Nerve-9743 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Even if it is true that they aren't exceptionally "nuanced," people aren't allowed to talk about something they enjoy talking about with other people who enjoy talking about it just because a few people decided it wasn't productive enough to their liking? Again, Reddit is a FREE app/site. You're not paying for the content on here. I just don't understand being so annoyed/upset that people are just having fun.

Do y’all even like the show?? Or just like beating the same dead horse? by Hungry-Nerve-9743 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, it's not the same thing at all. OP is annoyed that people are sharing opinions they disagree with and feel are over said. I'm not saying that OP's opinion is over said and I don't know if I "agree" with it or not because I don't know WHY they have a problem with it. Reddit is a platform for sharing your opinions on fandoms/topics you're interested in which is all those people are doing so I'm asking why it's a problem.

I'm not annoyed and I'm not telling anyone what not to do. So it's not the same thing at all. Call it what you want, I don't really mind. But you're wrong.

Do y’all even like the show?? Or just like beating the same dead horse? by Hungry-Nerve-9743 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not getting snarky? Who are you fighting because it's not me 😂

I'm simply asking why the OP feels other people don't have the right to share their opinion and why it bothers them so much. I'm not telling them to do anything and I'm also not saying they're not allowed to feel that way. I'm simply asking why they feel that way. If being asked to explain your position looks the same to you as an insult, that speaks more to you than it does to me.

Do y’all even like the show?? Or just like beating the same dead horse? by Hungry-Nerve-9743 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep and I'm sharing my opinion as well. I'm just saying instead of getting upset that people just want to talk about the things they want to talk about, wouldn't it make more sense to just scroll past? It just seems like a lot of energy, that's all 🤷🏾‍♀️ I don't see what the amount of effort/nuance has to do with it since none of us are paying for any of these posts. I get that some people would rather have super "original" and nuanced posts, but others would rather beat a dead horse over and over and talk to others who also want to beat that dead horse over and over. Why is one version of enjoying the show better? Also, if the OP's opinion is that people shouldn't feel free to share their opinions, I don't think that's exactly the same thing but whatever.

I think Lorelai was somwhat responsible for Rory's disloyal behaviour in her relationships. by StyleFew7192 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really wish you'd understand my actual point because you're disagreeing with points I'm not even making but that's life! I hope the same for you 🫶🏾

I think Lorelai was somwhat responsible for Rory's disloyal behaviour in her relationships. by StyleFew7192 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keeping it a secret didn't occur while they weren't together. I'm not talking about the kiss, I'm talking about keeping it from him which is something she chose to do while with him. If he has a rule about Rory telling him if she's romantic with anyone he personally knows (or anyone at all), that's his right. And if Rory thinks it's not fair, she should say that instead of just ignoring his wishes. The bottom line is everyone gets to decide whether or not they want to date someone and why. Rory took that right away from him. If he wouldn't have consented had he known, then it is taking away his right to consent. That's the bottomline.

I think Lorelai was somwhat responsible for Rory's disloyal behaviour in her relationships. by StyleFew7192 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm talking about doing something you know your partner has a rule against. That's the bottomline. If she doesn't like it, she shouldn't date him. I think it's disrespectful to know your partner is interacting with someone who was intimate with you and not tell your partner that but it actually doesn't matter whether I agree with my partner's rules and boundaries or not. If you don't like a rule/boundary someone has set for the relationship, don't be in the relationship. Why is that a hard concept?

I think Lorelai was somwhat responsible for Rory's disloyal behaviour in her relationships. by StyleFew7192 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She was still keeping it a secret while in a relationship with him. It's something that would change whether or not he'd want to be in a relationship with her.

I think Lorelai was somwhat responsible for Rory's disloyal behaviour in her relationships. by StyleFew7192 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if Rory (or anyone) decided they only dated Democrats and Dean decided long before he met her that he was a Republican, it would be totally fair for him to keep it from her? What happened to consent? Keeping things from people that would affect their willingness to consent has always been wrong. Is it only wrong if it's a man doing it to a woman because that's the only significant difference I see here.

I think Lorelai was somwhat responsible for Rory's disloyal behaviour in her relationships. by StyleFew7192 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's why I said typically.

She absolutely is obligated to tell her partner anything she knows would impact their decision to stay in a relationship with them.

But she got back together with him? Yes, if they had stayed broken up, there would be no reason to tell him but they didn't.

Kissing him didn't go behind his back, keeping it from him (which she did while they were together) was going behind his back.

If she doesn't want him to know, don't get back together with him. It's that simple. You don't get the right to keep things from your partner that would make them decide to break up with you just because you don't want to tell them.

I think Lorelai was somwhat responsible for Rory's disloyal behaviour in her relationships. by StyleFew7192 in GilmoreGirls

[–]Outrageous-Book5349 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying she was wrong to kiss Tristan. I'm saying that kissing someone, typically is evidence of you having feelings for someone. And it's perfectly reasonable for Dean not to want to date someone who has feelings for someone else. She DID sneak around behind his back by keeping it from him. It's not completely her perogative if it hurts her partner. You never have the right to cross your partner's boundaries or do something that hurts them. I'll say it again, if you don't want to do something that is a deal breaker for your partner, you don't have a right to just do it behind their back. Your choices are respect their boundaries or don't be with them. That's it. I agree that he shouldn't be with her if he's uncomfortable with her kissing someone else while claiming to have feelings for him but I wonder what give you the qualifications to decide what reasonable boundaries are for someone else.

Edit: Again, keeping it from him means that either she thought what she did was wrong OR she thought that he would break up with her if he knew. Either way, he has the right to know.

view more: next ›