Remove ads

Cliches you can't stand

Dunno how factual this is but Rebelion always felt like the uprising against a domestic opressor, while the Resistance as the uprising against an external force/occupier.

Semantics and probably not true but that us the connection my mind makes
 
The way I've usually heard it put is that it's a rebellion if you lose, a revolution if you win.

A resistance would be when you're still fighting and haven't done either, I guess.
 
Here's one: The enemy has a boss, and is in a group with subbosses. Could be 4, could be 9, whatever. That's actually really cool.

Then the leads work through them all one by one! And the later/last ones are all 'you may have beaten all the rest but I'm stronger!' and goes in acting confident like the hero doesn't have a chance.

Nah. Once you've gotten through, like, half, the baddies really need to start working together or doing other stuff. Because even if the remaining baddie is the strongest, even by a lot, their bravado comes across as weaker when you've chumped all their group without them doing anything about it, and/or conversely the heroes, even if still outmatched, have a lot more reason to feel confident when they did 'beat the odds' through all the prior ones.

Even in good media, when the end is just facing off against one person, there's a sense of the protags having a lot of momentum on their side, so if the story isn't going for that, it doesn't quite work. Plus, just mixing things up and "The enemy has X lords and we've beaten Y so we'll just continue on- what do you mean the remaining ones all grouped up??" would be a nice change.
 
Last edited:
Q99 said:
Here's one: The enemy has a boss, and is in a group with subbosses. Could be 4, could be 9, whatever. That's actually really cool.

Then the leads work through them all one by one! And the later/last ones are all 'you may have beaten all the rest but I'm stronger!' and goes in acting confident.

Nah. Once you've gotten through, like, half, the baddies really need to start working together or doing other stuff. Because even if the remaining baddie is the strongest, even by a lot, their bravado comes across as weaker when you've chumped all their group without them doing anything about it, and/or conversely the heroes, even if still outmatched, have a lot more reason to feel confident when they did 'beat the odds' through all the prior ones.

Even in good media, when the end is just facing off against one person, there's a sense of the protags having a lot of momentum on their side, so if the story isn't going for that, it doesn't quite work. Plus, just mixing things up and "The enemy has X lords and we've beaten Y so we'll just continue on- what do you mean the remaining ones all grouped up??" would be a nice change.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Stardust Crusaders is a big offender here. The justification early on is that Stand users generally keep their powers hidden from each other, but at some point you'd think Dio's minions would become more afraid of the protagonists than of each other. I guess in Egypt some of Dio's assassins do work in pairs to an extent (the Alessi and Mariah fights happen simultaneously, I believe), and there was a period where they thought that Avdol was dead and thus that they were making progress in killing the Joestar group, but they still act oddly confident after what happened to all the other Stand users, and they never act in groups of more than two.
 
Comrade Future said:
In the Russian segment of YouTube there is such an odious figure as "Rebel Jack" - known for calling himself a communist and at the same time a supporter of the Confederate States.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wait that reminds me of a ancient Hellenistic philosopher. That said something about how everyone is equal and can live a life of luxury and who would do th manual labor "the slaves" because slaves aren't people. I think he meant that ironicly
 
Avernus said:
The way I've usually heard it put is that it's a rebellion if you lose, a revolution if you win.

A resistance would be when you're still fighting and haven't done either, I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I wonder how much of the good impressions of the "rebellion" term vs "resistance" or "revolution" is due to various pieces of media where "rebellion" is used because it sounded better in English.

The Rebel Alliance in Star Wars comes to mind, but I admit the first I probably heard about it was "The Great Rebellion" in the 1985 Filmation She-Ra.
 
Konradleijon said:
Wait that reminds me of a ancient Hellenistic philosopher. That said something about how everyone is equal and can live a life of luxury and who would do th manual labor "the slaves" because slaves aren't people. I think he meant that ironicly
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No - after all, this is our contemporary. Rather, he is one of those who say "It wasn't about slavery!"
 
Comrade Future said:
In the Russian segment of YouTube there is such an odious figure as "Rebel Jack" - known for calling himself a communist and at the same time a supporter of the Confederate States.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Remind me of someone I saw once. He called himself a Socialist and wanted to emulate the Gulf Arab states' de facto slavery because of 'Freedom of Movement.'
 
Freedom to own slaves!

Let me own my slaves!

on another not when Urban Fantasy stories have the pagen gods losing power from the lack of belief thanks to Christianity. But the Hindu pantheon is also lumped into that category despite having millions of active worshipers. Their are more praticing Hindus alive right now then their where ever worshipers of the Norse gods. Fucking Kali shouldn't have to struggle with a lack of Worship.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what you don't like? When deficiencies and weaknesses are declared as the criterion of humanity, and if someone is deprived of them, then he is not a human being.
 
Comrade Future said:
Do you know what you don't like? When deficiencies and weaknesses are declared as the criterion of humanity, and if someone is deprived of them, then he is not a human being.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I hear that sort of thing and while I'm sure it's usually unintended it makes it sound like an argument that either humanity is vile or that suicide the rational choice for any human, depending on if they are going with "humanity is defined by its vices" or "life is pain".

If I get a headache I take some aspirin, I don't say "pain is what makes me human!" and put up with it.
 
Avernus said:
Yeah, I hear that sort of thing and while I'm sure it's usually unintended it makes it sound like an argument that either humanity is vile or that suicide the rational choice for any human, depending on if they are going with "humanity is defined by its vices" or "life is pain".

If I get a headache I take some aspirin, I don't say "pain is what makes me human!" and put up with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even then, you could point out that all living beings feel pain, to some degree, so its not uniquely human.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top