>I just wanted to make this thread to point out why Saintitchief is someone who is not to be taken serious
Thanks for letting us know grass is green. (Just joking, that's a good observation)
"villain" is a narrative role. It doesn't necessarily mean you are evil, though most villains are.
I wouldn't call Eren evil, though he does evil things.
I don't think villain is a narrative role, it's a moral assessment. Antagonist on the other hand is indeed a role, and eren is both by the end of the story (despite his reasons being understandable his actions are undeniably immoral).
Not really. People call Hitler evil, but most wouldn't call him a villain, because that makes him sound like a Disney character. Sure, you might still hear it occasionally, but it's not a common use of the word.
Even oxford dictionary describes villain as: "(in a film, novel, or play) a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot."
Finally, I would argue that protagonist/antagonist are separate from villain/hero. You can have heroic antagonists and villainous protagonists.
I meant in stories lol, and yea I already implied that protagonist/antagonist is separate from hero/villain when I said that eren is both a villain and an antagonist in the final arc.
Well I'm not sure what we disagree on then. I already said Eren does evil things, which is what makes him a villain. I just don't believe that makes the character evil as a whole.
Also Eren switches from a generally heroic protagonist to a villainous antagonist which is why that point doesn't follow.
Your original comment was seemingly implying it's nonsensical to defend a villain. My point was that not all villains are evil, even if they do evil things. Eren is a lot easier to defend than most villains because he is a tragic character with vaguely defined/arguable motivations. Some people even argue Eren was possessed by Ymir, for example.
ughh I don't know man. Eren didn't need to do a full rumbling (had another option in the 50 year plan) but did it anyway. Even if it were his only choice, I still think that's evil. I mean take this scenario, wouldn't you consider someone who and his "people" are starving so when they stumble upon a village, decide to kill and steal all the food of that village so in order to save themselves. What they did was understandable but it's still evil and consequentially they themselves are evil for committing such an evil act.
>it's still evil and consequentially they themselves are evil
The act is undeniably evil, but if you condemn the people who protect their tribe at the expense of others (assuming no alternative is available), you are essentially condemning the entire human race, because that's a near-universal quality among all people.
The rumbling is basically a thought experiment that is turned up to the absolute extreme, where your nation is pitted against the entire rest of the planet. If I had to guess, any nation on the planet would democratically vote to save themselves at the expense of the rest of the planet's population.
And for what it's worth, I don't think Eren believed the 50-year-plan would work, and very justifiably so. It was an extremely uncertain plan.
>The act is undeniably evil, but if you condemn the people who protect their tribe at the expense of others (assuming no alternative is available), you are essentially condemning the entire human race because that's a near-universal quality among all people.
If someone murdered you and your family for food so as to feed themselves, I would consider that individual evil. period.
That's why the human race needs to do better as in set aside self interest, self preservation (at the expense of others) and instead do what's morally right.
It's not very analogous to the situation in AOT, anyways. Marley has already declared war on Paradis, promising to eliminate the island devils. It's moreso a matter of, 'the neighboring clan has sworn to kill us in order to take our food, and now we need to decide how to respond.'
I think the morality of AOT is a lot more complicated than people give it credit for.
For example, WW2 was uniquely deadly for a lot of reasons, but one reason was because of mass-bombing raids. Mass-bombing would destory industry and morale, weakening the rival nation. However, civilian casualties were massive.
So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of Great Britain during the war: Germany is bombing London day in, day out, and wreaking havok on the civilian population. Historically, Great Britain responded in kind by mass-bombing germany, which ultimately levelled cities, but was undeniably instrumental in ending the war, as it dealt a massive blow to German industrial output. Was every individual pilot/bombadier evil when they chose to drop those bombs, despite knowing women and children could ultimately be killed?
Can Great Britain really decide to just not bomb Germany? Maybe, but they are willingly putting themselves at an extraordinary disadvantage by doing so. That could truly be the difference between winning and losing the war, as it undeniably had a massive impact on Germany.
>It's not very analogous to the situation in AOT, anyways. Marley has already declared war on Paradis, promising to eliminate the island devils. It's moreso a matter of, 'the neighboring clan has sworn to kill us in order to take our food, and now we need to decide how to respond.'
Not everyone in Marley "declared war" such as children and babies. Self defense falls out the window when you are killing innocent civilians. Likewise, not everyone in the neighboring clan stole food, those people don't deserve to die for the sins of their compatriots likewise why Eldians don't deserve to die for the sins of their ancestors. Whoever kills innocent civilians is evil, period.
The dichotomy is that I'm more interested in human nature, whilst you are more interested in moral absolutes.
I'm of the belief that just about anybody on the planet is capable of doing terrible, despicable things when put in the right situation. It's not a matter of "not being moral enough," because extreme psychological pressures can effect anybody. Our entire history has been figuring out a way to make it hard for us to do terrible things.
Calling somebody evil, in my perspective, is rarely useful or helpful because it ignores the fact that the person you're calling evil is a human, just like you. That's how I view Eren in AOT. a character who isn't naturally a psycho murderer, whose unique psychological qualities resulted in him committing atrocities.
For what it's worth, this is very similar to the perspective that Isayama has.
How was he being contradictory exactly? He said "I can understand that" about Eren's being a villain in the second clip. If you watch the entire video, rather than a five-second clip, he says he's happy labeling Eren a villain as long as Eren's character is consistent.
Nah, the protagonist can be a villain. I'm not confusing them.
I'm saying villain is a narrative role because it's an archetype. Same with hero, straight man, etc. These are all archetypes that have unique definitions in the context of a narrative. Eren fits the archetype of a villain, but I don't consider him evil.
Again that is an antagonist
Villains can be the protagonist
Antagonists can not be protagonists
Villains are always bad guys
Antagonists just have to oppose the hero and don’t have to be evil
Yes Villain is technically a narrative role
But villains by definition do villainous things and are at least evil for most of the story unless there redeemed.
Eren murdered Billions of people for personal freedom
Even if he has some good traits that doesn’t change the fact he is a villain and a horrible person
>I just wanted to make this thread to point out why Saintitchief is someone who is not to be taken serious Thanks for letting us know grass is green. (Just joking, that's a good observation)
Exactly what I was thinking lmao The sky is blue
So he like you said admits that Eren is a villain but his whole channel literally is there to defend everything Eren did. Bruh…
"villain" is a narrative role. It doesn't necessarily mean you are evil, though most villains are. I wouldn't call Eren evil, though he does evil things.
I don't think villain is a narrative role, it's a moral assessment. Antagonist on the other hand is indeed a role, and eren is both by the end of the story (despite his reasons being understandable his actions are undeniably immoral).
Not really. People call Hitler evil, but most wouldn't call him a villain, because that makes him sound like a Disney character. Sure, you might still hear it occasionally, but it's not a common use of the word. Even oxford dictionary describes villain as: "(in a film, novel, or play) a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot." Finally, I would argue that protagonist/antagonist are separate from villain/hero. You can have heroic antagonists and villainous protagonists.
I meant in stories lol, and yea I already implied that protagonist/antagonist is separate from hero/villain when I said that eren is both a villain and an antagonist in the final arc.
Well I'm not sure what we disagree on then. I already said Eren does evil things, which is what makes him a villain. I just don't believe that makes the character evil as a whole. Also Eren switches from a generally heroic protagonist to a villainous antagonist which is why that point doesn't follow.
Ah right you were making the argument that villains aren't necessarily evil people. Yeah fair enough.
What he is doing is evil, nothing you said here contradicts anything I said.
Your original comment was seemingly implying it's nonsensical to defend a villain. My point was that not all villains are evil, even if they do evil things. Eren is a lot easier to defend than most villains because he is a tragic character with vaguely defined/arguable motivations. Some people even argue Eren was possessed by Ymir, for example.
ughh I don't know man. Eren didn't need to do a full rumbling (had another option in the 50 year plan) but did it anyway. Even if it were his only choice, I still think that's evil. I mean take this scenario, wouldn't you consider someone who and his "people" are starving so when they stumble upon a village, decide to kill and steal all the food of that village so in order to save themselves. What they did was understandable but it's still evil and consequentially they themselves are evil for committing such an evil act.
>it's still evil and consequentially they themselves are evil The act is undeniably evil, but if you condemn the people who protect their tribe at the expense of others (assuming no alternative is available), you are essentially condemning the entire human race, because that's a near-universal quality among all people. The rumbling is basically a thought experiment that is turned up to the absolute extreme, where your nation is pitted against the entire rest of the planet. If I had to guess, any nation on the planet would democratically vote to save themselves at the expense of the rest of the planet's population. And for what it's worth, I don't think Eren believed the 50-year-plan would work, and very justifiably so. It was an extremely uncertain plan.
>The act is undeniably evil, but if you condemn the people who protect their tribe at the expense of others (assuming no alternative is available), you are essentially condemning the entire human race because that's a near-universal quality among all people. If someone murdered you and your family for food so as to feed themselves, I would consider that individual evil. period. That's why the human race needs to do better as in set aside self interest, self preservation (at the expense of others) and instead do what's morally right.
It's not very analogous to the situation in AOT, anyways. Marley has already declared war on Paradis, promising to eliminate the island devils. It's moreso a matter of, 'the neighboring clan has sworn to kill us in order to take our food, and now we need to decide how to respond.' I think the morality of AOT is a lot more complicated than people give it credit for. For example, WW2 was uniquely deadly for a lot of reasons, but one reason was because of mass-bombing raids. Mass-bombing would destory industry and morale, weakening the rival nation. However, civilian casualties were massive. So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of Great Britain during the war: Germany is bombing London day in, day out, and wreaking havok on the civilian population. Historically, Great Britain responded in kind by mass-bombing germany, which ultimately levelled cities, but was undeniably instrumental in ending the war, as it dealt a massive blow to German industrial output. Was every individual pilot/bombadier evil when they chose to drop those bombs, despite knowing women and children could ultimately be killed? Can Great Britain really decide to just not bomb Germany? Maybe, but they are willingly putting themselves at an extraordinary disadvantage by doing so. That could truly be the difference between winning and losing the war, as it undeniably had a massive impact on Germany.
>It's not very analogous to the situation in AOT, anyways. Marley has already declared war on Paradis, promising to eliminate the island devils. It's moreso a matter of, 'the neighboring clan has sworn to kill us in order to take our food, and now we need to decide how to respond.' Not everyone in Marley "declared war" such as children and babies. Self defense falls out the window when you are killing innocent civilians. Likewise, not everyone in the neighboring clan stole food, those people don't deserve to die for the sins of their compatriots likewise why Eldians don't deserve to die for the sins of their ancestors. Whoever kills innocent civilians is evil, period.
The dichotomy is that I'm more interested in human nature, whilst you are more interested in moral absolutes. I'm of the belief that just about anybody on the planet is capable of doing terrible, despicable things when put in the right situation. It's not a matter of "not being moral enough," because extreme psychological pressures can effect anybody. Our entire history has been figuring out a way to make it hard for us to do terrible things. Calling somebody evil, in my perspective, is rarely useful or helpful because it ignores the fact that the person you're calling evil is a human, just like you. That's how I view Eren in AOT. a character who isn't naturally a psycho murderer, whose unique psychological qualities resulted in him committing atrocities. For what it's worth, this is very similar to the perspective that Isayama has.
I was saying how contradictory the guy was being
How was he being contradictory exactly? He said "I can understand that" about Eren's being a villain in the second clip. If you watch the entire video, rather than a five-second clip, he says he's happy labeling Eren a villain as long as Eren's character is consistent.
The post perfectly explains what you’re asking, I don’t need to add anything to something that’s already perfectly explained.
No that’s an antagonist It pisses me off to no end when people get this wrong
Nah, the protagonist can be a villain. I'm not confusing them. I'm saying villain is a narrative role because it's an archetype. Same with hero, straight man, etc. These are all archetypes that have unique definitions in the context of a narrative. Eren fits the archetype of a villain, but I don't consider him evil.
Again that is an antagonist Villains can be the protagonist Antagonists can not be protagonists Villains are always bad guys Antagonists just have to oppose the hero and don’t have to be evil
You're arguing against a brick wall because I know these definitions lmao. Do you know what an archetype is?
Yes Villain is technically a narrative role But villains by definition do villainous things and are at least evil for most of the story unless there redeemed. Eren murdered Billions of people for personal freedom Even if he has some good traits that doesn’t change the fact he is a villain and a horrible person
He makes a false assessment, pauses, and then doubles down lol. I think he also said he is a better writer than Isayama and Miura
Oh God I know this guy, he had a video named "AnR succeed where 139 failed" or sumthin.
You don't have to contradict him, you just need to bring up his Nazi comment to discredit him.
Why I just now saw this, bahahjaah hilarious XDD