Sociopath Community

Arya stark gangbang when

tbh she didn't really destroy sc she just ousted herself 

I think Limey here makes an excellent point. SC is strikingly similar to the Game of Thrones, and there are good fucking reasons!

You're all protagonists in one big fucking jungle book with the same "hooks" as the ones used in fiction. Luna's surface problem is that she can't control the forum members and act as a leader, but the real story-worthy problem is that she wants to be loved but always ends up seeking approval in harmful company. So her story-worthy goal is to break free of the chains that cage her to negative influences in her life, which the forum represents.

Turncoat's surface problem is trying to find out a way to live by his philosophy. But his real story-worthy problem is that he just needs to face the reality -- that his philosophical perfectionistic world-view that causes him problems can never be realized in practice. His story-worthy goal is to become a mentor to people like BohemianRhapsody who share some of these flaws, ultimately forcing him to accept the reality.

Every character is consistent. And exaggerated.

I mean just look at Inquirer. He's a perfect example of a non-protagonist, exaggerated (and fake, admit it Inquirer you fucking bitch) evil character. He's also self-aware of the fact. Basically every. single. thing. Inquirer ever fucking says is in line with some intellectual, robot without emotion, evil-schemes-under-the-surface type character. I mean just look at his response to "What keeps you moving forward":

"What primarily motivates me is the feeling of becoming better and learning new things, as well as seeing things I build/work towards take shape."

Learning new things (intellectual), and seeing things you build/work towards take shape (evil schemer). No shit. Fuck you Inquirer, nobody is this self-aware and consistent without playing a character. You're full of shit and I don't know how you get away with the things you do. Anyway, Inquirer's surface problem is his need to express his real personality as SensitiveSoul.

And then there are characters with antagonists, like Edvard. By antagonist I don't mean Billy, Billy was basically just Edvard's bitch. I mean Tony, Jhawk, Good, Turncoat, etc. No matter what, his character just doesn't quite play right if there's no antagonist.

So there are protagonists (with story-worthy problems), non-protagonists (w/o story-worthy problems) and then there are just failed characters. Failed characters are people like Blanc, who are full of melodrama, but nothing deeper. People crave for real drama, some depth. Something more than "boohoo my life is horrible."

Sorry I found myself lurking after all, and I couldn't resist now that Limey made this fantastic analogy. This is (sadly) exactly what I was thinking when I was watching Game of Thrones.

Not even in SC can I get away from spoilers, you all deserve to burn in the hottest pit of hell.

Limey said: 

In Game of Thrones, Dany starts out as the savior. She frees the slaves, burns the masters, and generally acts like a savior building up a large group of loyal followers.

Then she goes to Westeros and loses a ton of her supporters. Jorah dies, Missandei dies, John rejects her as a lover, and she becomes isolated. She starts to feel hated by the people she rules over, and decides that if she can't rule through love, she will rule through fear.

In the latest episode, she easily takes the city of Kings Landing, and the city surrenders to her. So what does she do? She burns the whole fucking thing to the ground. Children, mothers, innocents, they all get burned to death along with the whole of Kings Landing. Her right to rule as a just ruler is fucked, and I'm sure she will herself be murdered in the next episode or two.

I can't help but to feel like the writers of GOT got lazy and copied SC's story arc. Euron is clearly Jim. John Snow is obviously Michael. Tyrion Lannister was Edvard, and Varys was Spatial Mind. Kings Landing and it's Iron Throne must have been S-C.

 I fucking swear, the parallels between Dany and Luna crossed my mind when I saw the last episode XD I said: this is Luna, through and through.

That said, what is even creepier, is Turncoat and I discussing GOT 2 years ago or so. He had this theory that Dany would become a crazy power hungry unstable character, when there was almost nothing to suggest it. It seemed so wild to me at the time, but also a very cool theory. It was the first time I ever heard about it.

Then turned out it is exactly what happened.

Legga said: 

I think Limey here makes an excellent point. SC is strikingly similar to the Game of Thrones, and there are good fucking reasons!

You're all protagonists in one big fucking jungle book with the same "hooks" as the ones used in fiction. Luna's surface problem is that she can't control the forum members and act as a leader, but the real story-worthy problem is that she wants to be loved but always ends up seeking approval in harmful company. So her story-worthy goal is to break free of the chains that cage her to negative influences in her life, which the forum represents.

Turncoat's surface problem is trying to find out a way to live by his philosophy. But his real story-worthy problem is that he just needs to face the reality -- that his philosophical perfectionistic world-view that causes him problems can never be realized in practice. His story-worthy goal is to become a mentor to people like BohemianRhapsody who share some of these flaws, ultimately forcing him to accept the reality.

Every character is consistent. And exaggerated.

I mean just look at Inquirer. He's a perfect example of a non-protagonist, exaggerated (and fake, admit it Inquirer you fucking bitch) evil character. He's also self-aware of the fact. Basically every. single. thing. Inquirer ever fucking says is in line with some intellectual, robot without emotion, evil-schemes-under-the-surface type character. I mean just look at his response to "What keeps you moving forward":

"What primarily motivates me is the feeling of becoming better and learning new things, as well as seeing things I build/work towards take shape."

Learning new things (intellectual), and seeing things you build/work towards take shape (evil schemer). No shit. Fuck you Inquirer, nobody is this self-aware and consistent without playing a character. You're full of shit and I don't know how you get away with the things you do. Anyway, Inquirer's surface problem is his need to express his real personality as SensitiveSoul.

And then there are characters with antagonists, like Edvard. By antagonist I don't mean Billy, Billy was basically just Edvard's bitch. I mean Tony, Jhawk, Good, Turncoat, etc. No matter what, his character just doesn't quite play right if there's no antagonist.

So there are protagonists (with story-worthy problems), non-protagonists (w/o story-worthy problems) and then there are just failed characters. Failed characters are people like Blanc, who are full of melodrama, but nothing deeper. People crave for real drama, some depth. Something more than "boohoo my life is horrible."

Sorry I found myself lurking after all, and I couldn't resist now that Limey made this fantastic analogy. This is (sadly) exactly what I was thinking when I was watching Game of Thrones.

 LEGGA IS BACK!

Edvard said:

 LEGGA IS BACK!

 So I was just thinking of coming back here to make that post, see if there were any replies, sigh, and then go back to whipping my collaborators. I almost forgot all of that when I saw your new avatar.

Who's that?