The thought process of watching S1 of the TWD TV series
Thoughts:
"Did Lori haul her jewelry box when she and Carl left the city?"
"Why is Lori's hair styled?"
"Why is Shane such a jerk?"
"Glenn is the best."
"Oh hi! You die later in the show."
"None of these people have any tact."
"Daryl , did you just let Glenn get carted away by potential gangsters?"
"Grandma ex machina "
"Ed is scum."
"Glenn is the best."
"Shut UP Daryl."
"Just get eaten already , Shane."
"It is beyond stupid to hold a Walker and tell it you're sorry. You can apologize from a safe distance , Andrea."
"Tact. Is. A.Thing , Lori."
"Oh hey look , we go to the CPS and meet this doctor dude and get smashed."
"Please shoot Shane, please shoot Shane , please shoot Shane."
So that was the experience i had watching TWD S1. What was your thought process watching it?
Comments
Why is he though ? You are the one insulting the guy, so you are the one who should know.
While watching The Walking Dead for the very first time, I thought Shane was a well written character that cared for his best friend and brother of heart above anyone else. Fact proven, not only by words, but actions, and lack of actions. He is an ex police officers wich was caucious enough to protect, lead and gain the trust of a bunch of people. His tactics could have worked for a short time, but I am not sure how anything would have evolved if he was still leading the group and Rick never showed up.
See, Rick is a character I love, but it happens that from Shanes point of view, he came and took everything from him. What Shane now rightfully thought became his family, Lori's trust for him, the respect ( or obediance anyway ) of the people he cared for and felt the need to protect, his position as a leader, the false impression of safety and tranquillity... everything. Shane thought Rick, the man he loved, was dead, or at least that's what he says to Lori in the first season. Everything he has done after that is obviously because of that, but also because he is sensitive, hot headed, and would sacrifice anything for the physical and emotional well being of those he cares for, including his/Rick's family. That's why they had sex, to satisfy their need of safety and pleasure when everything around was falling apart. They helped each other to stay ''sane''. Shane Walsh is easely touched by what happens to people around him but seems to be really lacking when he needs to put words on what he feels or thinks, he prefers actions wich is either badass if you agree with him or irritating if you disagree, probably the reason why he was in the authority in the first place.
He needed Lori to deal with these complex feelings in the beggining. Lori was also scared, lost and alone with an attractive savior, she needed him, I don't blame her neither.
Now Lori's opinion on Shane is unstable, it makes Shane unstable. Lori clearly says she doesn't want him close to Carl and herself in the beginning, but later on she says otherwise, or needs him to protect her. It's confusing, it's painful, and no one deserve such thing.
Regardless of if Rick came back or not, Shane's feelings are still here, for Rick, for Lori, for Carl and for the whole group. Shane seing his best friend pop out like a pop up, naturally taking charges, and driving everyone in what Shane thinks is an handfull of dangerous situations isn't exactly his definition of an ideal. From Shane point of view, Rick isn't fitted for that world, and he wants to protect Rick from changing but also from endangering everyone else.
Remember when in the first episodes Shane said Rick shouldn't go with the few men and guns they had because then they wouldn't have enough people/gun to protect the camp, well he wasn't wrong. Rick didn't listen. Shane was struggling to protect people from walkers After Rick's return, people in the shop were attacked because Rick ( and Glenn in an attempt to save him ) attracted walkers. Because of this mess Glenn had a wonderful new car wich is probably the reason walkers found their way to the camp. Merle was left on a roof wich lead to Daryl being obligated to come back for nothing, and the camp have been attacked because of unproper protection. People died. Yet, Rick is still the one who mainly leads, and Shane, understandably, doesn't understand why. Then instead of Shanes idea, they follow Rick to find a cure... more people die.
Shane is also more alone than ever. Did you ever heard of Shanes parents ? Shanes siblings ? Shanes friends aside from Rick ? No, his best friend has kept many things, he has none of that. He kills himself to protect people, but we don't even know if Shane's family is alright ( Shane is not the only character in this situation, I am aware ). So yes, Rick is back, and all Shane has is gone. Excuse the man if he is a little bit upset.
He cannot talk to people he is close to, Rick's family don't want to have anything to do with him, and Rick himself is the cause of all his trouble, he naturally cannot talk to him about what bothers him.
It's getting worse as more people die, and he gets angrier and angrier without being able to talk about it to anybody. What do you think is going to happen next ?
You remember Shane and Andrea being miserable in the shower when Rick and Lori were all lovey dovey in theirs. Lori is the woman Shane also loves. While being drunk Shane tried to rape Lori, there's no excuse to justify that and that's honestly the only thing I have against him, other than that Shane is definitly not a jerk to me.
Fucking amazing comment. You've perfectly summed up Shane's amazing character and deep psychology that many overlook. I fucking salute you, brilliant.
Dude, Shane's the best.
If anything, Shane is really smart.
As far as the apocalypse goes, he "got it" before literally everyone else did.
look what Rick did so far, you think shane could've done that? no, he would kill every one for his own good, like he shot that fat guy and left him for zombies
look what Rick did so far, you think shane could've done that? no, he would kill every one for his own good, like he shot that fat guy and left him for zombies
Survival of the fittest. Cough cough.
lori was the best. show is so boring without her trolling all characters. remember when she say to andrea that she belongs in kitchen?
I don't give a shit really. I stopped caring about the show, and about the video game series for the most part, a long time ago.
The way I see it, yes it's a good story, both the show and the video game series, but in the end that's all it is.
There are plenty of other things to be focusing on, more important things to focus on in life.
To me, survival of the fittest is a bunch of bullshit, because even the most fit Among Us it is not much if all alone.
People are strongest when they work together. Quite frankly, we need each other in order to survive effectively.
This clip from The Outlaw Josey Wales basically states my view of things.
enter link description here
And I know that some people on here are not going to agree with my statement, and I'm okay with that.
Some of you might think of me as a dick, naive, paranoid, or a conspiracy theorist, and I'm okay with that.
If you live your life worrying about the opinions of other people, quite frankly then you're not going to have much of a life.
"You can't please everyone', as the old saying goes, 'so you got to please yourself."
I have to speak, and live in a way that makes sense to me.
I agree
actually in my opinion Lori was boring
Walking dead is good but yeah i agree with you, if you wanna make a good story, make it from the real world. don't change it to zombie planet.
I actually thought season 1 was the best of the show and I also think Shane was a fucking brilliant character.
GLENN 4EVA!!
No, the original poster is not insulting the guy.
This is their thought process upon a dead character.
While I agree that Shane is a well written character with a lot of good points to him, I also feel like you are giving him way too much credit. Shane unknowingly saved Rick, and he saved Lori and Carl by telling them Rick was dead. It was questionable, but ultimately the right thing to do, and yes he should be upset that he is constantly berated for that decision. But after that, he is unstable and entitled at best. He gets so upset at Rick for saying he doesn't know what it's like to have a wife and son (which really, he doesn't. He makes the case that he does but he doesn't. He took care of Lori and Carl for a month, but Rick was the one that had to endure the hard parts of marriage and raise his son from birth), and just for saying that, Shane aims a gun at Rick and contemplates shooting him.
I would maybe understand his motivation for doing this if they had been a year longer into the apocalypse, where it would really feel like Rick is taking what is his and what he has fought for. But one month is a ridiculous amount of time to think you suddenly own someone else's family. That's not love. Shane, at this point, does not love Lori and Carl. He sees them as a lifestyle he had never had and he likes living, being the father and protector figure. If he truly loved them, he would not even think to kill Rick. If he really loved them, he would not even think to rape Lori. It's his sense of entitlement, thinking that they owe him this because he saved their lives.
I do agree, though, that he does make the right decisions for the group, such as defusing tense situations (at least in season 1), but that's not much of a surprise as a police officer. And I also agree that Lori's changing opinion of him added to his instability. But I also think that not everything he does is driven by some good intention. He CAN be a jerk.
I felt season 1 was the best season. Coincidentally I just finished rewatching it, and there are so many new things that I appreciate about it.
The biggest thing is making characters who aren't even that likeable still understandable. The characters that get hated on in later seasons - Lori, Shane, Andrea, even Carl - are all fully fleshed-out characters in season 1. It's not until season 2 that characterization becomes simplified and inconsistent. And even though I made a case against Shane above, I still think he was a great character here. Unlike other seasons that have slow episodes that serve mostly as filler, this season didn't have a dull moment. Even slower scenes were used effectively to build tension, establish tone (like the shower scene), or give context to a situation our character.
Cinematography is also, in my opinion, better than later seasons. There was unique and symbolic angles and lighting, and some of the most iconic shots. The tone was like that of a horror movie and drama at once. Special effects budget was bad and it showed in the CDC explosion, but overall I liked the way that Season was made.
It was interesting though, how much Daryl's character changed. I know a lot of it is just character development over the seasons, but he probably had more lines in his introduction episode than in the entirety of season 6. He talked WAY more... which probably explains OP's "Shut UP Daryl".
He is insulting the guy. If you say someone is a cunt, for example, regardless of the fact it's true or not, it's still an insult. Insults don't have to be false to be insults, they can be factual.
I am pretty sure ''Bastard'' is seen as an insult, even when it's thrown to Jon Snow, it's a matter of tone.
I didn't say it was wrong to do so, I said ''why is he thought ?'', wich is to me a way to ask them to develop.
You are also spoiling the original poster.
ETA: This post was/is to @Mellorine
Damn, now I guess even opinions about fake characters are equivalent to bullying.
Yes, we do need each other to live, but the saying we are only as strong as our weakest link is still very true. Even if you have a big group, as long as their is someone who is weak and a liability who is doing nothing to improve when you are in a group when you depend on each other, you are in trouble.
You are spoiling the original poster.
Shane shot Otis to save not only himself, but Carl as well. If he hadn't, Shane, Otis and Carl would have all died that day and the whole thing would have been pointless.
And that's just as far as Shane could have imagined, us, viewers, know more than he does.
Since Shane was the one who killed the walkers in the barn, I wonder what would have happened then as well... Since Rick wasn't willing to go against Hershel's belief. I see a potential of way more death. Shane was actually the one saying that after a few days without results they should think about giving up because it's dangerous, Daryl got hurt and even though Shane and Daryl weren't exactly the closest, Shane cared...
He is often the one saying what people don't want to hear, naturally... No one listened. If Carl, Shane and Otis died, wich would have happened if he didn't shot Otis. Shane wouldn't be their to open the barn more than a risk of an accident that could kill the most of them, I know Daryl would rather die than give up on Sophia, wich mean another potential death.
Not everyone would agree with Rick obeying Hershel, but none of them would have done what Shane did, Shane is the only one who goes that far when it comes to put his thoughts into action.
Before you say that Shane should have been the one staying behind, know that he asked Otis to leave him way before actually shooting him, because Shane was injured and none of them could go very fast. Otis didn't accept and Otis would never have done such a thing. What Shane did was needed, Otis would have died eitherway.
I don't think Shane would have possible made it as far as where Rick currently is. He was too far gone for them, of course he was totally able to take the best decisions for everyone, but he needs help to go through PTSD ( wich I assume he got after killing Otis ). He could recover but a bit like Sarah, he wouldn't have anyone to help him through it. He also needs people trust, wich is not something he had anymore.
I admit I don't really know if he would have made it or not, it all depends of if he killed Rick, or if Rick died of an accident in front everyone else. If he killed Rick, wich is extremely difficult for him to do and get through after, no one would follow him. I can't picture Shane without a group, with PTSD, and lost in the middle of nowhere. I think it would be the end of him.
[removed]
[removed]
''Why is he though ?'' ( a jerk ) - > A question about someone's thought process. Know that the original poster not only insulted the character but also actively said they wanted them to die. I wondered what drived them to feel that way. Shane is my favorite character, that's why I am that curious. If I insulted your favorite character, wich is often misunderstood by viewers, with nothing more than a short sentence and no explanation whatshowever, wouldn't you be curious to know if it's for the same reason than those that misunderstand the character ?
''You are the one'' -> because they are the one.
''insulting'' -> ''Jerk'' happen to be an insult... English isn't my first language, please correct me if I am wrong. I also have looked up the definition of insult, to say that insults can indeed be factual, wich mean that ''jerk'' being an insult, doesn't also mean it's wrong and cannot be someone's personal opinion.
''the guy'' -> Shane is a man, aside from tumblr who would butcher me for assuming someome's gender I think I didn't do anything wrong here.
I then explained why I said that, wich, in no instance, contained a sentence with me calling op a bully. If I did, or if one of my sentences made you think otherwise : would you please quote me ?
@Mellorine
I've noticed you said English isn't your first language, so let me explain. In the English language, the word insult has many Negative connotations. The way you used the word "insult", as to say OP was just being mean to a fictional character just to be mean, which could translate to bullying.
And the way you used "why is he though? You are the one insulting him" sounds like you are saying Shane isn't the jerk here, but instead OP is.
Quote for reference
Shane is not a real person—breaking the fourth wall was needed—and, therefore, he is not insulting them. You cannot insult something that isn't real. That line was most likely meant to be taken as a simple critique on him.
The fact that they were criticizing his character doesn't eliminate their opinion on him, nor does it make them a jerk.
Asking for them to elaborate on their idea is fine of course, but you might want to skip the part where you follow the question with a snarky comment next time.
Oh my God, get out.
I liked Shane as well.
"Shane, please beat the shit out of Ed."
As soon as he did, I knew how much I liked his character.
I obviously believe you about the negative connotation of insult, but the problem is that he is, indeed, insulting the character. It has a negative connotation but it's still true. I am complimenting a character by saying they are well written, it's not any better or any worse than what they did. Jerk is an insult, therefore he is insulting the guy ( character ). I didn't even say it thinking about whether or not it's suppose to be negative or positive, I am just putting what I have every reason to think is the truth.... because it is the truth. Insulting and bullying are actually two very different things and even though english isn't my first language, I am unable to agree with you that insulting a character is in anyway equal to bullying it. You are probably reading too much into a simple sentence, if I meant bullying, I am a brutally honest person, I would have put bullying.
Know that any definition I look up are in english, not in french, otherwise it would have been natural for me to make a mistake.
To me Bullying isn't defined by being mean just to be mean, insulting isn't even defined by that either, so I never said what you interpreted in my comment.
wich is what the op did. Jerk isn't exactly the most respectful thing you can say to someone.
Do you disagree with any of these definitions ?
I totally can see what you mean, and to be fair, I will now correct it because it definitly wasn't my intention but I would have thought the same if I read it. I was saying they were the one insulting the character because they asked ''why is Shane such a jerk?'' wich is a rhetorical question, to US. I was saying that op should be the one to answer the question since they were the one to say Shane is a jerk. Since I don't think Shane is a jerk, I wanted to make it clear that I had no answer, but they should explain their opinion because, as I said before, I was curious. I hope I have explained it correctly.
@Mellorine
I did read closely into the sentence, because you quoted every single one of your words and explained every single one of them in multiple paragraphs.
And if you are going to look up the definition of bullying, don't use a school book definition. Bullying doesn't just have to be between two kids, which your source is mainly saying it is.
You talk about Shane as "someone" who is an actual person with real feelings who is reading OPs post crying their eyes out.
Well I admit I think it's possible to insult something that has no feelings, like a character. Maybe it's because I write but even if you say ''That tool suck'', to me, you are saying the tool suck, and insulting it. Does it mean you should stop ? Does it mean it's wrong ? It's for you to judge, I don't really care. But to me, when you adress an insult to something/someone, then you are insulting it. I think it's the definition of ''insulting'' is to insult something actually.
If I had put '' You are the one offending the character '', I wouldn't argue that it would not be the best word to use. Insult seems perfect for the situation for no other reason than because Jerk is an insult.
I didn't say op was a jerk, the assumption that I said it came from a misunderstanding actually. When I said '' Why is he though ? You are the one insulting him '', I actually meant that it wasn't of us to explain Shane's reasons to be a jerk when really, op was the one to say he was. Isn't it natural that the one linking a noun or an adjectif to something/someone, is the best one to be able to explain why they think this word fit ?
It would have been far better if I instead of the sentence I used I would have formuled it that way : '' Why is he though ? You are the one insulting him so you are the one who should know '', wich is what I am going to put instead.
My feelings for Shane's character are entirely subjectifs and may inflect on my judgement in my big explanation for example, but to me basically :
saying an insult to something = insulting it
It isn't one of the moments I am being subjective, I am putting reflexion into it.
Insulting something =/= offending it and I fairly believe that you can insult your computer ( because it's not working I don't know ), and I can point out that you are insulting it, without it being able to cry over your words.
I even said, that it being right or wrong, is entirely subjective as well.
I don't think I talked ''about Shane as ''someone'' who is an actual person with real feelings who is reading OPs post crying their eyes out '' Even if I say he is a guy or he is a someone, wich he is, in The walking dead, he is definitly not able to react to what op say, and just like you, I am aware he isn't in the capacity to read it.
Like you would say that Garfield is a cat, I am saying that Shane is a guy or a ''someone'', but they are both fictional, it's a fact. They can be insulted, but they can't be offended. The writers can be though, that's why I personnaly prefer constructive criticism to insults while refering to a character, but even if they insult it, it's not dramatic, regardless of if it is true or not. It happens often when someone create something and put it for everyone else to see and to judge it however they want.
About the school book definition,...as you please, bullies and victims can be of any age, I am going to change it and find something less specific.
I dunno dude, she was pretty unlikeable.
@Mellorine
Another thing I want to point out, certain things I say, ex: "crying his eyes out over a post" is an exaggeration , a common form of figurative language in the English language.
Your main problem with the OP was that he called Shane a jerk, which in your other post you implied he was a jerk.
In this post, you are referring To Shane as a "guy" not a character.
do not post this. It'll be even worse. Now it sounds like you are saying "why are you the one saying he's a jerk, shouldn't you know because your the one insulting him being a jerk". It comes off as sly.
All I am saying is, don't get mad at someone who doesn't like your favorite character by insulting the person. It's not a good look. When you use the term "insult" and the way you referred to Shane as a "guy"/someone, and on top of that your very first post, just came off strange. I understand language is not your first language (French is, right?) so I kind of get where you were trying to come from. Just be careful how you word things and say things.
I am aware of that, I am doing nothing more than taking your own words in my arguments. What you meant was that I talked about Shane like if he was an human being... and I explained why I used these words. You ignored my explanation without saying if you agreed or disagreed, naturally I thought you agreed but it happens you still come back with words that have the exact same meanings than before ( when you complained about my way of talking about Shane ). It makes me question if we are progressing at all.
And ? I am sure I explained myself in my last comment. Usually people answer to the last comment that react to the already expressed complaint, otherwise we can't talk or understand each other. At the very least you could say ''I don't/didn't understand'' '' You didn't explain yourself correctly enough'', ''it's not enough of a reason '' just for me to be sure you read instead of acting like you didn't even read ( with that particular sentence I quoted ).
It's exactly what I meant, if it comes off as sly then so be it.
At least people won't think I am calling op a jerk when it wasn't what I meant at all.
Op has said a character is a jerk in their thought process, they are able to defend their point of view through an example. I am sure op knows the moment when they felt like Shane was a jerk, and can describe it. They can develop, they can defend themself, just like I defended my point of view and LoseMyHome did defend theirs. It's a really interesting thing to do to try and read/write what makes you ''feel'' a certain way for a certain character. I am sure the fact I described Shane as a guy and pointed out they were insulting him, is just a way of putting words in my advantage without them being unappropriate, dishonest or incorrect in any way... Actually you did the same, but one of your word was actually incorrect, we will come back to it later.
I dislike laziness when it comes to make the effort of understanding something, I am tired of people wanting bland characters because they don't try to understand the complex ones. When I feel like someone took the time to try and understand the character I literally don't care about wether they like or dislike it... I am actually impressed and it doesn't matter if I disagree. Often people don't care about how complex a character may be. They want black and white so much they see through black and white, so they insult and there is nothing interesting behind their insults. When I am talking about a character that has gone through that a lot, I am afraid it happens again, so I can be sly... Maybe ?
I am not talking about Op in particular, because op didn't get the chance to explain themself but Shane is an old character he has been misunderstood for years. It irritates me slightly. Writers put work into something but people don't care about that.
You are ignoring one of my answer again, implying I insulted someone when I didn't. You are not winning an argument by ignoring people's explanation. Before you say it's just an advice, would you say to someone who always clean their bedroom everyday that it's important to clean their bedroom ?
I am not insulting people over characters, it's useless to advize me not to. Anger is something I feel yes but it goes when I get the chance to explain my point of view the best I can. Often, people don't even realize I am ''mad'', but if your point is for me not to get mad when people don't reflect at all about a piece of art or a complex character, I don't think I can control ''my feelings'', I can only hide them when I feel it's unecessary to show them, wich is what I do really really often. So don't worry about it.
It's a good advice and it's definitly something I should remember of. May I advize you as well ?
Now let's look at what I did, and what you did :
What I did :
What you did :
You didn't answer me directly and was only implying that you were referring to my comment. It's not a confident way of starting a discussion. If you want to understand someone's words or if you fairly think I did something wrong, talk to me directly. You seem confident enough to do so. If you are not, then don't post at all.
You concentrated about only one sentence and still managed to twist my words. Second advice, don't twist people's words. If you are confident that you are right, use your adversary's words. In that one sentence : I didn't secretely meant Op was a Jerk ( even if I understand why you thought I did ), I didn't secretely meant Op was wrong, I didn't secretely meant Shane had feelings and could somehow be offended, I didn't secretely meant Op should like Shane, I didn't secretely meant it's not right to have an opinion, and I didn't secretely meant that Op was a bully. If I put insulting what I secretely mean is insulting, not ''offending'' or ''bullying'', that are two different words. It was all in your head. So we come to the third and fourth advice : Don't overread and be careful of their words you use. Even if the person you are talking to isn't a fluent english speaker, they play english video games with english subtitles, therefore, they can understand english and are often reading more than once to be sure to be right about what you mean.
You ignored my explanation more than once, and even when I have hopes you actually understood what I meant, you come back and slam all of them. You said I used the word insulting and I explained you why it was the best word to use, still you are acting like it's a terrible word that isn't correct in the situation, if so...explain yourself. You didn't refer to my explanation at all, didn't say you agreed or disagreed, and actually came back with the excuse of negative connations of one of your first comments. If words have negative connotations, they shouldn't be banned of one's vocabulary on the internet when they fit the situation. ( Again, I explained why. ) I also explained why I refered to Shane as a guy twice, and your comment right after said '''In this post you are refering to Shane as guy '', like if you didn't read my explanation before. If you didn't understand because my english isn't perfect, just ask me, that way I can phrase it in a better way, otherwise we aren't going to get anything from this conversation. Don't just act like if you are making me realise something when you aren't.If you disagree, say so, and explain why. It was my 5th advice : don't ignore people's answers, if you don't do it on purpose then be careful. It's like if I ask a question and you answer the question, and without me saying if I agree or disagree I just ask the question again.
You actually told me my new sentence came off as sly after I corrected it and I agreed. You said it was worse than a sentence that seemed like I was calling someone a jerk, so a sentence coming off as sly is important... ''Sly'' is pretty...bad ? right ? The reasons you said my sentence came off as sly were because even if my words weren't completely wrong they were used at my advantage and ''implying'' ( From your point of view, not mine ) that op was acting wrong by stating their opinion. Your first sentence come off as sly too.
You changed insulting by stating ''opinions'', in order to make me the bad girl
... Both words are correct, I can't care less but it seems you do.
You changed insulting by ''bullying, in order to make me the bad girl... Bullying is incorrect because insulting isn't equal to being mean to be mean and Bullying neither. There is a definition behind ''bullying'', there is a reason for that definition. I never said Op was a bully, you made your sentence at your advantage by blatantly lying and the fact that it was your very first sentence that wasn't even directly a response to my comment isn't a good way to start. The way you phrased it can come off as sly, for the same reasons and even more than mine.
The difference is that I don't really mind being sly, I care about objectivity and honesty... You care about coming off as sly and I can see it with the way you told me not to change my sentence. I advize you to be careful of how you word things and how you say things. In a debate it's important to be careful that what you say can't be thrown back at you.
It was interesting to talk to you, and I hope you don't take anything personally. I honestly think these advice can be of use in an argument. You'll destroy your opponent, you even have the advantage of being english
.
@Mellorine
But you were acting confused in the thread as to why some were taking your comment as sneaky. And the next thing you say sure doesnt help you at all....
You were just saying "I dont know English very well so I may not understand" but now you're saying you understand what it means but you dont care...
How do you know that just because they dislike Shane they didnt want to put in the brainpower to dislike him? You seem to think that if anyone takes the time to understand his character they'll love him, which is the main reason we are in this right now. You assume things that arent even factual.
Ok, you just said you didnt insult the guy, but now you keep saying you wouldnt care if you did? I tried to explain to you why, even though your intentions "could" be pure, they come off as not.I understand you may/may not have meant for it to come off the way as some of us read it. I thought you'd understand that, since you did say you werent very good at English, even though now you're saying you dont care?
And the bedroom comparison doesnt even make since, no one said "YOU MEANT TO SAY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU SAID", I'm saying some could have perceived your comment as offensive, and your other comments, including the "laziness" ones, isnt helping your "i didnt mean it like that" defense.
If I wasnt confident about my comment, believe me, I wouldnt have replied at all. Next time, I'll tag you/anyone else. Just so there is no confusion or anything.
You concentrated on one sentence. Do you not remember when you explained every single word in ONE sentence in 2 paragraphs?
Well, apparently, I wasnt the only person who thought that you are trying your best not to understand how your comment came off as rude.
Again, you keep saying dont "overread" even though you are the one who quoted a sentence of your own and explained every single word/phrase. If I didnt then you'd probably say I was being "lazy".
LOL, cause it isnt. A whole bunch of people on this particular forum call every single character every name in the book, but what I have rarely/never seen is someone 1. Call others "lazy" for not understanding the character, because apparently the character is so good that if you understand the character and still dont like them something is wrong with you, 2. Say a comment that didnt come off as right, then say "well i dont care anyway". Which still has me thinking, because most of this argument was because you wanted to clear up what you said. 3. Act like their favorite is some golden character no one can insult, because if you do, you must not be able to understand complex characters.
??Explain
Thats how I percieved it, because you kept saying in the thread about how "OP is insulting Shane", when some actually though your first sentence in the thread, which you just said you DO NOT care about how it came off, was rude.
Why do you keep using sly to describe most of my comments criticizing you?
And please stop trying to make it as if someone is antagonizing you, trying to make you" the bad girl" even though you just said you couldnt care less. It doesnt make sense and its a contradiciton.
Good 4 u. Even though most of this was about how you didnt mean to come off as that... but ok.
I was telling you to change your sentence to help you out. But seeing as you could care less about how it comes off, even though you have made it be that your problem is how OP insulted Shane, its kind of strange how you dont care. If OP said they didnt care to you...just imagine that!
That's incorrect. I was confused because people were saying that op didn't insult a guy. This whole mess started when I tried to make you understand why I used these words.
Of course. What I care about is people understanding what I mean in a sentence. If I write something, I want people to understand what I write no more, no less. As your first comment twisted my words, I was trying to understand how you came to that impressive conclusion. The reason why I answered to someone else before was because they said op didn't insult a guy wich I definitly disagree on. Jerk is an insult. Shane is a guy. These two things can't be denied for the sake of protecting someone's feelings. You are the one adding that I said Shane could be offended. It's not how insulting work. Someone isn't necessarily offended when recieving an insult. That's why fictional characters and innanimate objects can be insulted but not offended.
Because they show me it's the truth with clear and undeniable examples. Every single time someone told me ( or someone else in a comment section ) they didn't like Shane they came up with reasons that simply weren't true. It means they don't understand the character, or worse...that they didn't really watch the show. ( but It's nicer to say that they didn't understand the character. You never have come to that situation where you watch a show and people are saying things that are obviously not true and you are :like '' Did we even watch the same show ? ''.... It could be that you are the one in the wrong, but it's not the case for me with Shane. ( With other characters that's possible )
I am going to give an example :
It's something that happened more than once in the show, if you need a specific example I would gladly give you one.
If you say you don't know what I mean when I say people refuse to see the blatant truth when it's in front of them, then I don't know how to explain you. If you don't see it right now, you will see it in the future while watching a show but also while watching the news. It's natural for some to see what's the easier to see. They even do it when they like a character and close their eyes on what they do wrong. Personnaly, I don't think doing something right or wrong in the eyes of the viewer is necessarily the only fact that make them likable or unlikable. For example : Shane tried to rape Lori, I don't think it's something he should have done, and he is still by far my favorite character of the whole show. I think a person admitting that Shane was right to shoot Otis for example ( because he was ) means that he will like Shane.
You said '' you seem'' , you are also assuming things that are clearly not right about me :
You are the one saying that I said if anyone takes the time to understand his character they'll love him. I never said it...ever. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I said, that if they put the time to try and understand the character, I don't care about their feelings for that said character at all. I remember having wrote it the clearest way possible because I wanted to make it clear that actual trying to see the obvious wasn't meaning that the feelings were going to follow one way or another. It's a very simplistic way to see life to think that because we understand something or agree with someone's decisions we will like them. That's why I never said what you mean right now, and I don't even ''seem'' to think that...
My conclusion : You are twisting my words.
What happened to the main reason why we are in this right now being because ''I wanted to clear up what I said''. You should at least agree with yourself and not ignore your own arguments.
What is the truth ?
What's wrong with concentrating on only one sentence ? Both you and I indeed concentrated on one sentence, the fact is you did it first with your very first ironic comment. I replied to that one. It was obvious you were refering to that sentence in particular. If what you understood by my last comment was that I was blaming you for concentrating on the sentence that was the one bothering you instead of the fact that you were either twisting my words or overreading it when it's really hard to do it for such a short and simple sentence with such simple basic words then I don't know what to tell you. I answered you because the fact that you came up with ''bullying'' was beyond me. If I said something rude, you should have used my rude words to call me out, but you didn't... You had to use different words to fit that incorrect interpretation of yours of a very simple sentence with very simple words.
Your explanation wasn't convincing enough. Saying a word has a negative connotation is not enough for a person who only cares about words fitting what they actually mean. If saying that someone insulted a guy, because they are insulting a guy is rude, I am choosing to be rude forever. It doesn't matter how much people gasp in the backround.
I didn't first try to understand why you thought I was rude, I was first trying to understand why you thought I called op a bully for his opinion and it was clear that you hadn't any reason to thnk so aside from a confusion between ''insulting'' and ''bullying''.
Now if it does come off as rude, I know why, and it fits what I mean so yeah...whatever.
You were more than two to think I called op a jerk, you were more than two to be wrong. I corrected my sentence for more than two people not because I thought it was less rude but because I thought people wouldn't misunderstand what I mean now. You said it was worse and followed by an explanation of exactly what I mean ( that if a character is insulted, the one that insults should be able to explain their point of view... ) The result came off as sly from your point of view. I said I didn't care, because at least now you understood what I meant, and for me that's exactly what I wanted.
Where is rude something something I cared about being ?
You wouldn't be lazy by not overreading a simple sentence. Not for me at least. But even if I thought you would be, it's not because I dislike this type of laziness that you overread my sentences. You overread them way before my last comment without knowing I disliked that kind of laziness. You overread my sentence for another reason, why is that ?
'' LOL, cause it isn't.'' Still waiting for a convincing argument.
You are the one saying that apparently if you understand a character and still don't like them something is wrong with the person. It's not what I said, I wrote that I didn't care if they liked or disliked the character after making the effort to try to understand it ( they don't even have to succeed because I don't think I understand every single tv show character perfectly neither ). You should really stop twising people's words. Read my sentences again if needed, because you are saying the opposite of what I said. I said very clearly that I don't care about someone's feelings when they watch something. I only care about objective observations that are often lacking when people critizice Shane. If someone is watching a show and there is a car, but they are saying there is a dog instead of a car.. I am really bothered. I don't care if they like what they see or not. Believe it or not they do it with Shane's actions. Like I said before, they don't see what's actually happening, and then judge from there. It's something that often happens in Social justice too for example : they see a report in the news, ignore the context, the facts, the statistics and judge from there. I don't care about their conclusion that much, I care about people understand what's happening.
I care about my comment reflecting my thoughts, I don't care about people thinking it comes off as ''sneaky'' or ''sly''. I definitly prefer a comment being qualified by these two adjectives than a comment that can make people think I called op a jerk when I didn't.
To be clear, you twisted my words so I didn't like it and I answered, not because I thought that I indeed called someone a bully for their opinion. I answered someone else's comment because they actually took MY words and said they disagreed... I explained them why I thought it was the best words to use.
Clearing up what I said was done with the sentence you now think come off as sly.
Please refer to the previous times where I asked you to stop twisting my words and that somehow you changed something that was very clear...into...that.
You said insulting had a negative connotation, so you make it seem like op said something less insulting than they did. I never said it was wrong to insult, just like opinions fit perfectly, the only problem is when you put bullying after.
You make it seem like op said a peaceful opinion ( wich they kinda did ) but I said they were bullying a fictional character. Insulting is definitly a more negative word than opinion, so you increase the gap.
Stating an opinion and bullying are further in meanings than insulting and bullying.
I am not sure I understand this first sentence but yeah...no I still don't care about anyone coming off as rude as long as they are clear with their explanation. Like if Op was insulting me multiple times while actually developing an amazing and revolutioning point of view about Shane, then I would feel extremely happy because I feel like I would have got something from this conversation. Since I didn't insult anybody, I think I am fine.
Because it is sly for the exact same reasons than my sentence is. Don't you realise that indirectly responding to someone's comment by twisting their words in a very surprising way can come off as sly...too ? It's not even ''most of your comments'' it's just one sentence, wich is the very first you adressed me indirectly.
The fact I point out something doesn't mean I care about the thing. You missed my point. My point was that you were saying one of my comments could came off as sly ( or sneaky , or even rude ), it's even one of the reason you are saying you commented in the first place. Right ? That's the reason why you said I was calling someone a bully apparently ( because my comment seemed rude ). My point is don't do the exact same thing please. I am not the one trying to fix someone's behaviour, I am the one pointing out that what's really contradictory is that you pretend to have formuled your first sentence that way because you thought my comment could come off as sly ( from the beginning ) but are making a comment that could come of off as sly by your standards as well.
You are contradictory, I am not. I don't care about both of us being sly, I care about you being contradictory.
Please refer to the moment I explained I only cared about what people could actually clearly read in my words, not what they felt. If it comes off as sly it's okay if the meaning is what I want to be.
You helped me actually, I am satisfied with my new sentence, you are the one who are not. I have no problem with op, I am recently starting to develop a problem with your reflex to twist people's words xD. I also have a problem with people that have stupid reasons to insult a character ( reasons that don't exist ). Op didn't do that, they didn't give any reason but I admit that it's true that in the back of my mind I keep the memory of these people...in the end, that's probably why I come off as sly. It doesn't mean I have anything against op's insult. I have something against op wishing the death of the character yes, but not in a very serious way, it's because it's my favorite character. If it was serious, I wouldn't have answered it with a gif reaction. Of course I would like more people to like Shane ( if you talk about caring that way, then yes ), if not I wouldn't have answered, but I don't seriously think the most important is their feelings about their character, the most important is the thoughts behing those feelings. I found myself really enjoying a discussion about someone's view on religion, we weren't agreeing but it didn't really matter. That's why I didn't answer to '' Shane is a jerk '' - > '' I think Shane isn't a jerk, I like him '' without any thoughts whatshowever behind that. The conversation would be really short if we both exchanged our subjective point of views. There is nothing in it for me to learn.
If Op said they didn't care about my subjective point of view on Shane, I would say they shoudn't, the more you care about stuff the more you suffer. I would still want their goddamn explanation of how they came to that conclusion that '' Shane is a jerk '', because that's what I came to hear about.
( to correct later )
Ok, this is my last comment. After this you can reply as many times as you want, because this is seriously getting old. Really fast.
Who is twisting your words? I quote almost every single fucking thing you wrote, and then you say I didn't "understand what you were saying".
In bolded: Whos feelings are being hurt? Again you are twisting my words. When did I say anyones feelings were being hurt?
Imagine if you said you didnt like Jane, and the only thing I cry out is "YOU MUST NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE CHARACTER" and "WHO R U CALLING A JERK U SHOULD KNOW BC YOU ARE THE ONE INSULTING HER" or "YOU ARE INSULTING HER AND U PROBABLY DONT UNDERSTAND/LAZY" and "SPOILER!" it gets annoying, right?
Oh my Lord, a few people giving you some examples means everyone must not have a valid reason to not like Shane? This is when being a fan goes wrong. You start becoming illogical and "twist" fact with opinion and vice versa.
Shit, apparently you care a whole DAMN lot to create a whole paragraph and have 2 arguments on this thread defending him.
And the reason I decided to stop this argument, is because no matter what evidence I have , you will back it up that "well i didnt say that exactly" which is exhausting.
What is the truth ?
LOL, and here you go again.
Both those points are relatable, because you say things, and you try to clear them up by saying "that not EXACTLY what I said u twistin my words!!!"
I quoted what you said, its at the VERY top of the thread. But then again, you kept saying "thats not what I MEANT!!!" or "U twisting my words!!"
??? I dont even get this.
You mean you are still looking for an argument you'll like. If I say something that I perceived from your sentence, you'll say "u twisting my words". Look up perceived and look at the second definition on google. Better yet, I'll copy it here.
You never said it, but you sure did act like it, ex: your very first post, not even thinking about any arguments against Shane's character, etc.
So being Lazy, which you did say, isnt a character flaw, AKA, something being wrong with the person. And you did say this, so dont deny it this time
Good4u
I cleared that up, because you are right. I was referring to you because you were/are the only person in the thread who was posting "he insulted SHANE!!!" every minute.
I'll edit the post and tag you, hell ill do that in every single one of my posts, ok?
I was trying to help you, seeing you even posted "English isnt my first language so help me out" because im sure someone isnt going to be so nice and help you try to understand how things may come off in English, the next time you do something like this.
Good4u x2. When are you going to stop praising yourself over and over again in your posts? its really weird.
No one is twisting your words, I just stated how I perceived your comments, I never said thats exactly what you said. Quote that, because you are twisting my words.
So basically, this whole argument was about how me, and maybe 1 or 2 other people, perceived your comment, and you believing because thats not what you said word for word, or opinion is invalid, and how apparently since youve come across every TWD fan, (all of the ones who dislike shane anyway) you know for a fact most, if not all of them, who dislike him dont have a very good reason. And how you refuse to understand how anyone could perceive it as sly/rude/etc, and if we do you dont care/im lying/ im twisting your words/etc.
oh and @Mellorine