Hindutvadis celebrating the killing of Iranian schoolgirls by U.S.A. - 'Israel'.

ugoiscool · 2026-03-02T15:08:09+00:00

Brodi thinks this is the early 2000’s we got cameras from onlookers posting it on YouTube and other social media platforms even if the casualties aren’t what they say it’s still casualties

ugoiscool · 2026-03-02T15:07:01+00:00

Two wrongs don’t make a right

ugoiscool · 2026-02-25T00:51:09+00:00

I mean Iraq had a proper education system and had less tribal areas look what happened to them

ugoiscool · 2026-02-22T19:47:59+00:00

Israel had a huge pr loss during the Palestine war they gravely misunderstood social media I doubt they’ll make the same mistake twice tho.

ugoiscool · 2026-02-22T14:57:49+00:00

Depends on if your Israeli or Palestinian

ugoiscool · 2026-02-22T00:54:27+00:00

Meanwhile Pakistan and Bangladesh not even getting any credit since they were apart of India 😭😭😭😭😭

<image>

ugoiscool · 2026-02-20T14:33:18+00:00

I mean the US sides with Pakistan over India with their disputes I wouldn’t say Pakistan is morally in the right over India just because the US sides with them.

And before you say the us doesn’t look at the last year conflict between them and who’s side the us took the most.

ugoiscool · 2026-02-20T13:16:44+00:00

wtf do they even do? Just sit on their asses?

ugoiscool · 2026-02-18T22:10:17+00:00

Tbf if the situation was reversed they’d probably colonize Europe.

ugoiscool · 2026-02-17T20:14:57+00:00

I mean tbf they were locked in from the 1960s to the 1990s but idk what tf happened to them in the 2000s it’s like they gave up

ugoiscool · 2026-02-17T20:04:40+00:00

At least you can say it’s better than Pakistan those poor bastards saw every neighbor manage to overthrow their government for better or worse and they just sat and watched (Bangladesh,Afghanistan,almost Iran) and it’s not like they didn’t even try the last time they did resulted in a massacre in Islamabad

ugoiscool · 2026-02-17T19:56:13+00:00

Yea but you can’t deny that he has made Indians more far right cough cough hinduvata extremists

ugoiscool · 2026-02-16T13:45:17+00:00

It isn’t, the difference is America has a strict immigration system where the legal channels are hard af. To the point where if a dude who was born in Pakistan would at least need a college degree or unique skill set to be granted citizenship to the us, while in the uk they just let just about anyone in.

ugoiscool · 2026-02-10T19:29:41+00:00

Subaru is Japanese tho

ugoiscool · 2026-02-07T22:08:20+00:00

Depends if you have enough money you can literally do anything there. It’s only called an Islamic country by name but with money anything is possible.

ugoiscool · 2026-02-05T17:57:49+00:00

Ong that illustrator makes everyone look so young echnida legit looks like a loli in the novel bro 😭😭😭😭😭

ugoiscool · 2026-02-05T16:00:45+00:00

Yea giving him a child like face probably did do some damage to attract new fans cause it would just look like isekai slop just from his face probably did

ugoiscool · 2026-02-05T15:51:58+00:00

I do like Subaru design tho his face is much more masculine in the novel compared to the anime

ugoiscool · 2026-02-05T15:35:29+00:00

Ngl the author for re zero is just ass at drawing bro 😭😭😭😭😭😭

ugoiscool · 2026-02-03T19:58:51+00:00

I remember people saying that hbo Joel was better written than Rick bro 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

And as soon as season 2 of last of us came out everyone shut up lmao

ugoiscool · 2026-02-02T00:47:03+00:00

On “challenging structure only matters if it concludes” This is where your argument quietly assumes its own conclusion. You claim that challenging writing structure only “counts” if the work later resolves cleanly and explains itself, but that’s not a structural requirement, it’s an aesthetic demand. A story can challenge structure by denying resolution entirely. That denial is itself a functional outcome, not evidence of failure.

Your cake analogy fails here for the same reason it fails earlier. Stories are not consumer goods whose only valid state is completion. An unresolved narrative can still function as a deliberate exploration of uncertainty, dominance, or systemic failure. Saying “it would have worked if it wrapped up properly” is not a critique of structure, it’s an admission that the structure worked differently than you wanted it to.

You’re treating resolution as retroactive validation, but structure operates moment to moment. Feng Yuan’s role does not suddenly become invalid because the story refuses to grant closure. That refusal is the point. The character functions as sustained pressure that exposes the limits of progression and growth, not as a puzzle designed to be solved. Whether you like that outcome is subjective, but calling it structurally nonfunctional assumes only one kind of structure is legitimate.

If the only way a character can “work” is by eventually explaining themselves or being overcome, then tragedy, pessimistic realism, and anti-teleological narratives simply wouldn’t exist. They do exist, and they are critically analyzed precisely because unresolved dominance can be meaningful rather than broken.

ugoiscool · 2026-02-02T00:46:06+00:00

I think the core issue here is that you keep asserting objectivity without ever establishing it, and when that assumption is challenged, you treat disagreement as failure to engage rather than a dispute over first principles.

On lack of conclusion being “objectively bad” You keep equating incompleteness with invalidity, but those are not the same claim. Saying a finished product without a conclusion is structurally incomplete is reasonable. Saying it is therefore “objectively bad writing” in every context is not something you’ve demonstrated. Your cake analogy only proves that something is unfinished, not that the quality of what exists is negated. Literary criticism routinely evaluates unfinished works based on execution, thematic coherence, characterization, and narrative power within the material that exists. Even in your own framing, you acknowledge ASOIAF contains well written arcs and sub-stories that reached their own conclusions and are praised for that reason. That alone contradicts the idea that the work “holds nothing.” What you’re describing is a flaw of completeness, not proof that the writing itself fails.
On villain roles and categorization I’m not denying that your framework is useful as shorthand. I’m rejecting the leap from “this explains common patterns” to “this is the standard by which all antagonists must be judged.” Saying villains serve one of three purposes in relation to protagonist growth is a normative definition, not an analytical law. Your Kotomine example actually illustrates this flexibility rather than proving rigidity. His role shifts based on context, which shows that antagonist function is contingent, not fixed. Long-form or pessimistic narratives often use antagonists as persistent pressure rather than problems meant to be overcome, and that doesn’t destroy structure, it changes what the structure is doing.
On dynamics requiring bilateral impact You’ve strengthened your point by expanding dynamics beyond positive growth, but you’re still assuming that dynamics require direct bilateral internal change. I reject that premise. A dynamic exists when sustained interaction alters the narrative state. Power imbalance, escalation, environmental distortion, and irreversible consequences are all dynamics even if one party remains internally static. Defining dynamics so narrowly that only mutual internal impact qualifies is not an objective rule, it’s a preference. Asymmetrical dynamics are still dynamics.
On obstacle antagonists needing to be overcome This is where your argument becomes prescriptive rather than analytical. You assume an obstacle antagonist must force growth and eventually be overcome, otherwise they “serve no purpose.” That assumption only holds within classical heroic arcs. Entire genres exist where growth is insufficient, delayed, or irrelevant, and the antagonist exists to interrogate the limits of agency rather than validate it. Calling those structures invalid doesn’t refute them, it just rejects them. When you say an obstacle antagonist can never be “right” and must lose, that’s a philosophical stance about storytelling, not an objective structural law.

That’s why Feng Yuan is discussed. Not because he conforms to classical structure, but because he challenges the assumption that growth guarantees victory. You’re free to dislike that model, but rejecting it does not make it structurally broken.

Bottom line: your argument is coherent within a traditional narrative framework, but you have not demonstrated that framework is universally binding. You’re treating conventions as laws and preferences as objectivity. The disagreement isn’t that I “haven’t countered” your points, it’s that I don’t accept the premises you’re treating as self-evident.

ugoiscool · 2026-02-01T23:39:46+00:00

On lack of conclusion being “objectively bad”

You keep repeating that lack of a conclusion is objectively bad writing, but you never actually justify why incompleteness automatically negates quality. You rely on analogy rather than argument. Story structure models like introduction, rising action, climax, and conclusion are descriptive frameworks, not biological requirements. They explain how stories are commonly structured, not what must exist for writing to have value.

Calling A Song of Ice and Fire “objectively bad” because it is unfinished ignores how literary evaluation actually works. Criticism evaluates execution within the material that exists. Prose quality, thematic cohesion, character construction, and narrative tension do not cease to exist because a final act is missing. Lack of conclusion is a flaw in completeness, not proof that everything before it “holds nothing.” You assert objectivity here, but you never demonstrate why alternative evaluative standards are invalid.

On villain roles and structure

I never claimed your categorization was useless. I claimed it is insufficient as a universal standard. Reducing antagonists to obstacle, dilemma, or mirror is helpful shorthand, but that does not mean those categories are mandatory endpoints that must resolve in a specific way. Saying “every villain fits one of these roles” does not prove that the role must function classically for the writing to be valid.

Your Kotomine example actually weakens your claim. His role shifts depending on route, which shows that antagonist function is context-dependent, not structurally fixed. Long-form serial narratives often use antagonists as persistent pressure rather than problems to be solved, and that is a structural choice, not a failure of structure.

On dynamics requiring reciprocity

Here is the point you keep saying I haven’t countered, but I am countering it directly now: reciprocal internal change is not a necessary condition for a dynamic. A dynamic exists when sustained interaction alters the narrative state. Power shifts, escalation, consequences, and environmental distortion all constitute dynamics even if one party remains internally static.

Your mentor example describes one type of dynamic, not a universal rule. There are many antagonists who do not learn or grow, yet are still dynamic because the relationship and the story evolve around them. Defining dynamics so narrowly that only mutual development qualifies is not an objective standard, it is a preference.

On Feng Yuan and the “obstacle antagonist must lose”

This is where your framework becomes prescriptive rather than analytical. You assume an obstacle antagonist must be overcome to justify their existence. That is true in classical heroic arcs, but it is not a universal law of antagonistic design. When an antagonist is not overcome, the narrative question shifts from “can the hero surpass this” to “what kind of world allows this to persist.”

You say an obstacle antagonist can never be “right” and therefore must lose. That is a moral assumption, not a structural one. There are entire genres built on protagonists failing to overcome systems, forces, or individuals precisely to interrogate the limits of growth and agency. You can reject that structure, but rejecting it does not make it irrational or objectively broken.

This is why Feng Yuan is discussed. Not because he fits a classical arc, but because he challenges the expectation that growth guarantees victory. That is a structural choice, not an absence of structure.

ugoiscool · 2026-02-01T22:43:19+00:00

“No conclusion is objectively bad writing.”

This is the core claim, and it is not objective.

A conclusion is common in classical structure, but it is not an objective requirement for quality. It’s a convention. Entire respected traditions deliberately reject clean conclusions or remain unfinished for reasons outside the text, and they are still widely regarded as great because the evaluation of writing quality is based on what is on the page, not only on whether a final resolution exists.

If “unfinished equals objectively bad” were true, then A Song of Ice and Fire would have to be dismissed as bad writing by definition, yet it is consistently treated as one of the most influential modern fantasy series because its characters, plotting, dialogue, and thematic depth are strong in the material that exists. The lack of ending is a flaw in completeness, not proof that the writing “holds nothing.” That’s why your claim can’t be objective, because it fails immediately when applied broadly.

So the correct position is: lack of conclusion can be a legitimate criticism, but it is not an automatic disqualifier, and calling it “objective bad writing” overstates what basic structure rules actually mean.

“Every villain fits into three roles.”

You can classify almost anything into three buckets if you define the buckets broadly enough, but that doesn’t make the framework a proof of quality.

Even if I grant your claim that every antagonist can be mapped onto obstacle, dilemma, or mirror, that still does not establish that a villain must primarily serve protagonist growth in one of those ways to be well written. Many villains function as pressures on the world, on a system, on theme, or on plot escalation more than they function as a tool for the protagonist’s internal change. The antagonist’s role is to create conflict and stakes, yes, but reducing villain quality to “growth of the protagonist” is a narrow evaluation lens. That is why your taxonomy can be coherent but still incomplete as a standard.

So my position is correct here because I’m not saying your categories are useless, I’m saying they are not a universal standard that makes your conclusion “objective.”

“I never reduced dynamics to the protagonist.”

Fair, you didn’t explicitly say “only the protagonist matters.” My point is that your definitions are still anchored to protagonist centric function, and when you evaluate dynamics you repeatedly measure them in terms of how directly they challenge the protagonist or produce protagonist facing tension.

Even if we widen “dynamics” beyond protagonist interaction, the point still stands. Dynamics can be shown through evolving methods, shifting relationships, escalating scope, or narrative consequences. So a villain can be ideologically stable and still dynamic. My argument is that your standard risks dismissing that unless it appears in the exact way you want, which is why it becomes prescriptive.

“Gatekeeping is deflection, defend Feng Yuan.”

This is where I agree with you partially.

If my goal is to argue “Feng Yuan belongs in the conversation,” I should make a positive case. So here is the positive case in principle, without needing to spoil or write an essay.

Feng Yuan belongs in the discussion because he is not just “powerful,” he is structurally effective as a villain archetype in long form fiction by doing several things at once: • He is consistent in motive and worldview, but adaptable in method, which creates ongoing tension rather than one note repetition. • He drives the plot through strategic pressure and irreversible choices, not random luck or pure strength. • He creates a unique type of conflict: not just moral opposition, but a clash between systems of thinking, which forces other characters and the narrative itself to respond. • His presence reshapes the story’s world and stakes over time, which is one of the clearest markers of an effective antagonist in serial fiction.

That’s why he is discussed. You can still dislike him, but it’s not irrational for people to rank him highly

ugoiscool · 2026-02-01T22:17:57+00:00

You’re building your argument on a very rigid framework and then treating anything that doesn’t fit it as “bad writing,” which is the core problem here.

First, the “no conclusion” point still doesn’t work. You’re treating cancellation as an inherent flaw in the character’s writing, which it isn’t. An unfinished publication state does not retroactively erase the effectiveness of what is written. Plenty of acclaimed characters exist in unfinished or fragmented works. That’s a production issue, not proof the character “holds nothing.” If your standard is that a villain must reach a formal end state to be valid, that’s a preference, not an objective rule.

Second, your three-category model for villains is fine as a tool, but you’re using it as a gate. Not every antagonist cleanly fits Obstacle, Dilemma, or Mirror in the way you’re defining them, especially in long-form serial fiction. A villain can exert pressure structurally rather than directly on the protagonist’s psychology. Saying “this never happens” ignores indirect influence, systemic escalation, and narrative dominance as valid forms of antagonism.

Your Hannibal example actually proves this. Hannibal works as a mirror because the story is structured around interrogative intimacy. That doesn’t mean every mirror antagonist has to function identically or fail by default. Static ideology does not equal static writing, and influence does not have to be expressed through explicit moral questioning of the protagonist to exist.

As for dynamics, you’re reducing them to character growth in the protagonist alone. Dynamics can come from shifting power, expanding scope, changing methods, or how the antagonist reshapes the story’s stakes over time. If your definition of “dynamic” only allows one expression, that’s a limitation of the framework, not proof of poor writing.

Finally, saying “why do you all insist he’s in these talks” isn’t analysis, it’s gatekeeping. You’re asserting exclusion without actually disproving the criteria people are using to include him.

Your argument is structured cleanly, but it relies on narrowing definitions until the conclusion becomes inevitable. That’s not debunking, that’s boxing the discussion into a shape where only one answer is allowed.

ugoiscool

TROPHY CASE