Oh right...a posse is 5 and beyond.
Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.The show has an anti-military stint because Remnant did have a giant-ass war in the past, and Atlas' practice of making graduates from Atlas academy join the Atlesian military is shown as sketchy at best. The main reason there's an anti-military stint isn't because it's "cool and hip", it's that Remnant technically has no need for an organized military because of the Huntsmen.
I mean, Ozpin repeatedly said "We're in a time of peace", and the implication from his comments seems to be along the line that Atlas' military will cause a war, either directly or simply by existing.
edited 2nd Sep '16 9:08:35 PM by BlackSunNocturne
You're using a Watsonian element to explain a Doylist choice. The show has an anti-military slant because the creative team behind it wrote it with an anti-military slant. The elements and arguments within the universe for why the military is totes bad are there to represent the creative choice to depict the military as totes bad.
There could be any number of reasons for this choice, up to and including because hating on the military is just the cool thing for fantasy stories to do. Like I said before, Ironwood is a fairly common cliche. He's the guy who screams and rants about how we should shoot nukes at the aliens/demons/China and then does something stupid in the second act that causes more trouble for the protagonists, as seen in every movie ever made.
Watson doesn't make choices. He exists to present Doyle's choices in a fashion that's consistent with the universe in which he dwells.
edited 2nd Sep '16 9:14:56 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
That just seems like typical ability inconsistency.
No it's said to be sketchy at best. We've yet to see actual onscreen evidence of this. And of course, even if Atlas does turn out to be a horrendous military dictatorship that still won't actually prove that armies are evil. Just that this particular one has institutional problems.
You always need an organized military. If you don't, you are liable to lose the next war while scrambling to invent one.
Which is silly. Armies don't cause wars by existing. And despite all of Oz's dire warnings, the Atlas military doesn't cause a conflict.
Cinder causes a conflict by gaining access to a top secret military database that is apparently incapable of basic online security, and then hacking Ironwood's entirely robotized army. So instead of proving that "armies cause conflict" the show instead sends the aesop of "don't let your completely robotic army get hacked by an unrealistically lucky supervillainess". Truly a moral for the ages.
If Ironwood's army had been made up of regular grunts, Cinder's whole plan would have required a rewrite. A brilliant message about the dangers of militarism this was not.
I'll note here—I have no issue with a show having an anti-military stance. There are plenty of good discussions to be had about the role of armies, the structuring of armies, the culture of armies, etc. But I have never seen a show take the stance that "armies are bad, period" and execute it well.
edited 2nd Sep '16 9:19:05 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
And I think the Aesop is "If you're a general of a army than runs on Mecha-Mooks get a better security system" or "If you're a general of a army than runs on Mecha-Mooks, don't access an unsecured network with something that can be used to hack your troops"
Speaking of which: None of Cinder's crew seems to be that technologically minded that they can engineer a virus that can do all that and remain hidden until it's used. So that begs the question: Who made the Computer Virus for Cinder?
edited 2nd Sep '16 9:41:37 PM by BlackSunNocturne
" It doesn't really matter what message this show, or any show (or book or movie or comic) is trying to convey—what matters is what you take away from it. "
this is going off topic but while this is part true, it also let to many,many,MANY fan dumb behivor, from shiping wars(and all their toxic enviroment) to many damn rants, to flame wars, most of them started because "I dont care what the shot stated, this is WHAT I see"
Also it help to the nature of discussion, is one thing to know what the show convive and dont agree with it, other is directly non caring in favour of your interpretation, which is like creating fanon and them complaing for said fanon(a problem to often found for my liking)
Now leaving that part out:
" she came off as not only rigid and arrogant (both accusations one could level at Weiss initially) but overbearing, and frankly, unstable"
I disagree with unstable and agree that was in part the point, Winter care about her sister and have disiplent but it also have those point, if you disliked for it well that it.
" I dislike the portrayal of an alcoholic as the cool uncle,"
I think is more "he is cool uncle who is also alcholic" and if I have to graps is because Summer death, granted they choice his dickish personality as main flaw instead of his drunkness which I think one led to the other.
" In the arguments between him and Ironwood (and Ozpin and Ironwood) the narrative tries so hard to make Ironwood be in the wrong that I'm honestly more sympathetic to him"
I disagree in anti-military is more Ironwood aproach, he is critizied for his unsublety and for thinking the enemy will engaging front with army on his own, Ironwood refute to recognize the nature of his adversary and pay dear for it.
Also it show how battle with be fight in this show, the focus in individual, not in armies
"You keep trying to structure abuse as something that has one specific pattern to it"
No really, I try to structure as it show IN FICTION, which relies in trope and can be formulaic, this show dosent dosent try that much as it have the steriotypical Bully like Cardin or Adam who show the typical ex boyfriend cliches(he act posesive with her, claim he did things for her and even said the overused "why you hurt me" hell I was afraid yang beat him because that would be awfull), now I cant said she is overly strict, somewhat violent and yes treat Weiss as cadet at times.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Like I said before Qrow although Ruby idolizes him is actually a rather miserable and messed up person and a good example of how clinging to secrets and embracing the life of a warrior above all else can mess a person up.
Ruby was shown to have a distorted view of Remnant and the hunter life in general that Vol 3 quite clearly threw in her face, so maybe she won't be quite as idolizing of Qrow once she finds out just how deep Ozpin's hole was that he's supporting.
Although him pointing out that the super powered hunters of the world shouldn't be more concerned with the politics of a nation than killing the Grimm, is a good point. Hunter's are supposed to be above all that stuff.
but, just like superhero, you cant just keep thing separate and expect to be that way.
In fact I keep thinking Cinder is a ex hunter, so far we have criminal of all types(Emerald and Roman) asasin(Mercury) and revolutionary/terorist, all of them are the "lower part" of civilization which fit Cinder aproach of atacking from shadow and Salem plan to turn people apart(after all who know how to atack the weak part of a sociaty than people who already experience?)
I think there is going to be more villian, there need to a hacker(as other trope said, who have C Inder that virus) and Ex hunter but like I said, I think Cinder is that.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"I feel like we're talking past each other here. I'm not claiming that Winter is structured as a stereotypical fictional abuser. I'm saying that her behaviour is reminiscent of real life abusers I have known and that regardless of the show's intent, her portrayal is troubling to me.
You don't have to try to write an unhealthy relationship to write an unhealthy relationship.
Which again, is the narrative creating an unrealistic setup to justify an anti-military stance.
And would be a ludicrously heavy handed and nuanceless portrayal of the subject.
And those people have a point. Look, I'm not going to pretend there's no discrimination against the Faunus. There's obviously supposed to be. But that doesn't mean the show does a great job of demonstrating it.
Cardin and Roman demonstrate that racism exists, but as, respectively, an unpopular school bully (we ever see him run with anybody outside his immediate team?) and an underworld figure, neither works very well as a representative of institutional racism. Roman in particular doesn't work in this regard because as a literal outlaw complete with his face on a wanted poster he's incapable of embodying how society—a thing he's not a part of—normally functions.
That all the Faunus we meet are either successful, generally liked Hunters-in-training (Velvet, Blake, Sun, Neon), or terrorist criminals (Adam, the LT, the rest of the White Fang) doesn't help. To properly demonstrate that there is institutional, society-wide discrimination against the Faunus, we need to visit some slums. We need to see the workers at the Schnee Dust Company—and other company workers as well. We need "No dogs or Faunus" (cue "same thing, har har" joke) signs outside shops. Etc, etc. Otherwise the problems remain very much offscreen. Hopefully we'll get to see some of that next season, in Weiss and Blake's storylines.
I mean, imagine a series in which discrimination against African-Americans was a major part of the storyline, yet the only African-Americans we met were a) successful student athletes and b) members of a separatist terror group, while the only white racists we encountered were 1) a school bully and b) a member of the Dixie Mafia. You'd question how well the show was selling its message at the very least.
edited 2nd Sep '16 10:31:27 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Here's TL;DR: AmbarSonofDeshar claimed that Winter is abusive towards Weiss because of the Dope Slap, people said "no she's not", he defended his viewpoint, I came back and was like "Notto Disu Shittu Agen", and now we're discussing the fact that the anti-military stance in the show is bad... according to AmbarSonofDeshar.
However, now I am going to go to sleep. I wonder what I'm going to miss
edited 2nd Sep '16 10:45:46 PM by BlackSunNocturne
Alot of RWBY's problems are that it's a global situation but the setting of the show was thus far, locked to one relatively small area of the world. Thus there was alot of telling but not showing.
Maybe they should have accounted for that and changed it up, but what's done is done.
Now that animating the episode's isn't like pulling teeth and they can actually explore other parts of Remnant that aren't the surrounding area of one place, maybe this will change.
Oh yeah, Winter. In my opinion, her introductory moment was really... "bad" so to say. As in She first appears as a bitch sis who doesn't seem to approve anything Weiss does (even when Weiss is like "Notice me Senpai!" forwards her) and suddenly in the next episode we are suppose to look past that as her being a somewhat strict but caring figure. First impressions are important. Note that this is not saying Winter is abusive. Just that she was really acting like a bitch the first time we see her.
edited 2nd Sep '16 10:51:43 PM by TPPR10
Only sometimes posts"I'm saying that her behaviour is reminiscent of real life abusers I have known and that regardless of the show's intent, her portrayal is troubling to me."
them I will have to said the old saying "any conexion with real life is probably coincidence" as the dope slap was minor thing it dosent said much, specially since she gone into good sis sortly after, now if that happen more it will said something.
and to resume ambar point about racism: the problem is the show go into "Only bad people are racist", racism is not really bad in itself, but when is normalized by sociaty, at one point Blake said that the white fang start showing off Faunus violence drop off because they were respect, even grudgely, it dosent help that in the extremist group that is white Fang we only have two member: one is not-leatherface and the other is abusive asshole.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Comparing RWBY and real life comes up short because we don't have superpowered forcefields protecting us, and we don't live with the constant threat of death monsters powered and attracted by negativity that will never ever go away. Life, and morals are likely very different there.
I mean child soldiers are discouraged in real life, yet that's basically what hunter trainees are because they need hunters and they need to start at that age to gain the experience and aura control needed to survive on the job.
Or here's one. The roof scene with Jaune and Pyrrha in Vol 1 hints at the uncomfortable possibility of suicide being encouraged in Remnant if you are severely depressed. Sounds horrible, but if depressed people attract Grimm, that means someone sucidally depressed is a danger to everyone around them and might be saver for everyone if they just got it over with and stopped being a Grimm beacon, than risk trying to get them help and drawing it out.
You dont have to go so far to include diferent morals, is just the nature in how is writen, RWBY is very formulaic, going for the cliche and moving a little bit a times: Carlin is bully but a least he show fighting, Adam is complete abusive but he beat Yang and no the other way around like scene dictate, Winter is typical harsher and abusive sister and yet the dope slap was tell Weiss how she have being.
So if something, is experience with abuse give him a large range of reference than the writer of RWBY have at the moment of writing, in this case is not something bad, just awfull coincidence.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"(Joker Mode: Off)
So it seems that there has been quite a discussion. Now, I'm not going to take anyone's side, because I feel that I'm not properly equipped to participate in a prolonged argument.
However, I do object to how some people keep calling Tobias and Ambar's arguments as "shitposting", "trolling", and so on. I even see someone saying that there should be a mod intervention. I see some people trying to shut down discussions.
This is an absolutely irrational and uncivil behavior. They were being civil (at least, not explicitly uncivil) and relevant to the topic. Not everyone is going to see actions in a work of fiction in the same perspective, so there is bound to have argument. That's what this forum is for.
Nobody has the rights to shut down conversations that is not against this forum's policy. Those who try are the one who necessitate mod intervention. The last one who tried something like that in this very thread eventually got himself banned. I won't remind this again.
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.![]()
Also, if one doesn't like a (thread relevant) topic, s/he doesn't even need to keep on replying. Just switch to different topic. That's a perfect valid, civil response.
Telling other to stop talking about a topic, however, is not.
I do not agree with that they overblew anything. An application of real life logic, especially psychology/sociology, is a perfectly valid frame of interpretation of media. It's not entirely typical of this thread, but that doesn't mean the logic is invalid.
Now, whether I agree with that logic or not is a completely different matter. As I said before, I'm not going to take any particular side. I just feel that both side is free to provide their opinions.
I'm not going to specify which thread, but I've been in a thread where one side keep on trying to shut down other side's opinions, even though the other side was being relevant and civil. I was very infuriated by that and I'm not going to see it happen again in this thread.
edited 3rd Sep '16 12:15:07 AM by dRoy
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.![]()
Jokes, Speculation, Shipping, and Recapping (basically)...minor Criticism.

Um yeah. That's true for basically everyone. It doesn't really matter what message this show, or any show (or book or movie or comic) is trying to convey—what matters is what you take away from it. Here's an experiment for you—read a few different reviews of basically any movie you've ever watched. Even people who agree on the general quality of the film will read very different things into it, and attach very different symbolic meanings to it. I once read two different reviews of Hellboy, one in a leftist magazine that praised the film for having a demon as the main character and upsetting the religious crazies, the other in a Christian magazine that praised the film for its strong Christian message of redemption.
In the case of this particular show and character, I do not like Winter. She made an amazingly bad first impression on me. Between hitting Weiss and picking a fight with Qrow she came off as not only rigid and arrogant (both accusations one could level at Weiss initially) but overbearing, and frankly, unstable. She came off worse in those scenes than the chronic alcoholic and that is not a good thing.
Now, as I said, maybe they'll improve her in later episodes. But nothing short of a retcon on the scale of the one Tobias suggested is going to make me look back at her first appearance and declare "yes, she was behaving like a decent person there."
It's funny—as I've said before, I don't like Qrow's portrayal. I dislike the portrayal of an alcoholic as the cool uncle, and I dislike how he's a vehicle for the show's rather silly anti-military sentiment. In the arguments between him and Ironwood (and Ozpin and Ironwood) the narrative tries so hard to make Ironwood be in the wrong that I'm honestly more sympathetic to him. Winter is one of Ironwood's subordinates and is defending him from Qrow's verbal attack. But her reaction is so insane I actually find myself taking Qrow's part in that instance, which is not something I like doing.
You keep trying to structure abuse as something that has one specific pattern to it, then establish that since Winter does not follow that pattern her behaviour cannot be abusive. Which regardless of whether you think her behaviour is acceptable or not, is not a good argument. Abusive relationships have patterns, but there isn't one specific pattern they all follow. Having witnessed, and been part of, numerous abusive relationships, I can safely say that there's no single way they play out, and that Winter's behaviour is easily reminiscent of several I've been witness too. That's not to even make the argument that she is abusive, mind you (I'd rather be done with that line of conversation), just to note that saying "she doesn't do x, therefore she's not abusive" is not a convincing argument, or true to life.
I mean, I don't have all that much invested in "proving" Winter is abusive, but this argument drives me up the wall. I've heard it too often, not only in fiction, but in real life.
edited 2nd Sep '16 9:08:13 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar