Jon Snow: A mary sue?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

No, I already explained that. The industry is going to push these stories of minorities because such a character is present within the story over ones where it's not present unless it's about negative stereotypes. Even when it's not about race it further popularizes and normalizes it. This is going to be even more true with books because there aren't many popular series where the main character is non white.

You have explained nothing and not answered my question. You called Samuel Bass specifically an example of the 'McWhitey trope,' I'm not interested in your broad complaints about Hollywood. The question is, if you're calling the 'McWhitey trope' offensive to you, and this real person's real actions an example of the trope, do you find him and his actions offensive? And, if not, does that not show you that you need to engage at a deeper level than labeling someone a 'trope' because you can box them in a certain way?

He was raised away from them but unlike other characters who fulfill this he was born one of them and always preferred the wild than the Wall.

I'm not calling Mance an example of the trope, I'm saying his story demonstrates the strength of connection between wildlings and the North, that there is established history both in recent past and longer term of considerable interaction between North and wildling. Meaning that the wildlings aren't an alien culture to be saved, their ways to be learned, but a culture that has been in close contact with Jon's own for millennia and share many basic similarities.

They're not always tribes and chiefs but they are comparable to the scenarios in which this does happen.

I don't really care about what you think you can box into this trope. My point is that you're ignoring all of the ways the trope does not apply in favor of obtuse comparisons like 'Mance would be the chief'- you're reasoning from the trope rather than to the trope.

The Northern clans are apart of the seven kingdoms unlike the wildlings. They are not truly other even though they have differences. They also have similarities. Northern clans are willing to work with southerners to keep wildlings out.

When Stannis goes North the clans are not part of the seven kingdoms, the North has declared itself independent. And just as the Northern clans were willing to work with southerners to keep wildlings out, the wildlings are willing to the work with the NW to keep Others out.

He never lived with them. In Avatar Jake lived with them. Dany lived with the Dothraki. Jon lived with the wildlings. They learned their ways to the point a NW member wondered if Jon was half a wildling.

When does Stannis start to see them better, show genuine care about them, and start to like them? Since he hasn't spent serious time with them this is unlikely to happen. & especially since it's Stannis in particular. He's doing whatever he can to use them. Let's say they want Rickon to be king. His true nature will come out quick.

Stannis takes Jon's advice and goes to them, he has to spend considerable time with them as they all want to outdo the other feasting a King. He ingratiates himself with them just as Jon did, they are less advanced, and he leads them to save their homeland. All of your crude requirements for the 'McWhitey trope' are met.

Jon and Dany also fit it more with having a relationship with one of the natives and the fact that their respective "other" cultures are less advanced.

Jon comes off superior to both as I mentioned before because of Bowen Marsh, Selyse, and co. & the fact that the majority of Westeros does not care about or like them. He also is morally superior to wildlings in cases like Ygritte murdering the old man for him and when he argues with her about her culture by bringing awareness to issues such as rape.

Yes, a lot of Westerosi do not like them. And Jon's answer to them is- 'we need their help to fight the Others.' I don't agree that he came off as morally superior to the wildlings, especially in the context of a series in which the wildlings do no wrong that we haven't seen outdone ten times over by more evil people. Is Ramsay more civilized than the wildlings?

It being mutually beneficial wouldn't disqualify it. Jon is the one who was pushing for them to be saved,plotting things like Hardhome, and helping the wildlings at the Wall. In addition there's a high possibility that they consider him their de facto leader, savior, and king.

Well, you can leave the 'wildlings consider Jon their King' fan theory out of this, it's not relevant.

Again you're just ignoring the parts that don't fit so you can reason from the trope rather than to it. If you want to posit Jon as an offensive McWhitey savior then it is entirely relevant that he is acting out of desire to save his own society when he takes the wildlings into the realm. He isn't simply a benevolent interloper, he needs the wildlings' assistance. You can't just reject this and ignore it in favor of the things you think do fit into your box, that's very poor reasoning.

[E-Ro]

If Dany were Daniel and had been sold by his elder sister as a bedslave to a warlord/husband to the leader of a matriarchal warrior race and raised dragons and freed slaves?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'd LOVE to be sold to the leader of a matriarchal warrior race!

[Roddy the Ruin]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'd LOVE to be sold to the leader of a matriarchal warrior race!

what if she was unattractive and you knew nothing about her?and she.....let's say she dominates you in every way the word can be used? Would you be ok with that?

I'm not saying that a woman's physical appearance is the most important thing or that women should conform to standards of beauty but in this instance of being sold to marry a complete stranger you take what you can get.

Also

Dear Penthouse Forum,

Jackpot

[E-Ro]

what if she was unattractive and you knew nothing about her?

Nah, she would def be hot. The leaders of matriarchal societies always are. As for not knowing anything about her, I'm cool with that.

and she.....let's say she dominates you in every way the word can be used? Would you be ok with that?

That sounds like exactly what I need tbh. It sounds wonderful. A dream come true IMO.

Also

Dear Penthouse Forum,

Jackpot

Hells yeah.

[ARYa_Nym]

I'm not calling Mance an example of the trope, I'm saying his story demonstrates the strength of connection between wildlings and the North, that there is established history both in recent past and longer term of considerable interaction between North and wildling. Meaning that the wildlings aren't an alien culture to be saved, their ways to be learned, but a culture that has been in close contact with Jon's own for millennia and share many basic similarities.

That point is irrelevant and the example you gave of him being raised by the NW does not show that.

I don't really care about what you think you can box into this trope. My point is that you're ignoring all of the ways the trope does not apply in favor of obtuse comparisons like 'Mance would be the chief'- you're reasoning from the trope rather than to the trope.

I told you already. Having similarities does not mean that the trope can't apply so you listing what the wildlings and the North have in common means nothing.

Stannis takes Jon's advice and goes to them, he has to spend considerable time with them as they all want to outdo the other feasting a King. He ingratiates himself with them just as Jon did, they are less advanced, and he leads them to save their homeland. All of your crude requirements for the 'McWhitey trope' are met.

I never listed the requirements.

I just said what it entailed. They are noble. Jon was raised with nobles and his Stark background helps him. Dany was a Targaryen princess. ETA: They don't have to be though that just makes it better. Jake was not high class or elite amongst the humans.

They end up living with the other culture. Jake did in Avatar. Dany and Jon both did. Stannis did not. They learn their ways. Stannis did not learn their ways. The other group is first seen as savage and uncivilized but as they spend more time with them they start to stop thinking like that, accept them, and like them. Dany, Jon, and Jake did this. Stannis did not. I said it's not absolutely necessary but makes it stronger is if they have a relationship with the leader's daughter. Jon didn't do that but he did have relationship with 2 wildlings. Dany marrying Drogo fits it better. They are morally superior. Jon fits it better than Dany. Stannis is not helping them out of being morally superior nor does he have morally superior thoughts about them. Finally, they become their leader and savior.

Yes, a lot of Westerosi do not like them. And Jon's answer to them is- 'we need their help to fight the Others.' I don't agree that he came off as morally superior to the wildlings, especially in the context of a series in which the wildlings do no wrong that we haven't seen outdone ten times over by more evil people. Is Ramsay more civilized than the wildlings?

Ramsay, Weeper, and Varamyr are all in the same ball park. Ramsay is not even a representative of Westerosi culture and his behavior is presented in the text by other Westerosi as unacceptable behavior. Jon is the one who objected to Weeper going around raping and mutilating people. Ygritte is entirely indifferent to the raids.

The wildlings do not need to be morally superior to the Northmen and vice versa. Jon just needs to come off well for being the one who wants to help them, recognize their value, etc. while not participating in the lower aspects of their culture.

Well, you can leave the 'wildlings consider Jon their King' fan theory out of this, it's not relevant.

Again you're just ignoring the parts that don't fit so you can reason from the trope rather than to it. If you want to posit Jon as an offensive McWhitey savior then it is entirely relevant that he is acting out of desire to save his own society when he takes the wildlings into the realm. He isn't simply a benevolent interloper, he needs the wildlings' assistance. You can't just reject this and ignore it in favor of the things you think do fit into your box, that's very poor reasoning.

It is relevant.

Mighty Whitey...usually....becomes their greatest warrior/leader/representative.

Jake was their prophesied hero.

Not in all cases do they become the leader but just like having a relationship with one of them it strengthens it.

At no point is it said that they can't also act out of a desire to save their own society so that point would not disqualify anyone..

[OnionAhaiReborn]

That point is irrelevant and the example you gave of him being raised by the NW does not show that.

I told you already. Having similarities does not mean that the trope can't apply so you listing what the wildlings and the North have in common means nothing.

You're just breezing by my point be declaring it irrelevant. I point to a history of connection, interaction, shared culture between wildlings and the North which runs completely counter to the idea of an interloper in an otherized culture and you respond, 'No, ignore this! Is trope!'

You need to do more than than simply argue by insistent assertion.

I never listed the requirements.

I just said what it entailed. They are noble. Jon was raised with nobles and his Stark background helps him. Dany was a Targaryen princess. ETA: They don't have to be though that just makes it better. Jake was not high class or elite amongst the humans.

They end up living with the other culture. Jake did in Avatar. Dany and Jon both did. Stannis did not. They learn their ways. Stannis did not learn their ways. The other group is first seen as savage and uncivilized but as they spend more time with them they start to stop thinking like that, accept them, and like them. Dany, Jon, and Jake did this. Stannis did not. I said it's not absolutely necessary but makes it stronger is if they have a relationship with the leader's daughter. Jon didn't do that but he did have relationship with 2 wildlings. Dany marrying Drogo fits it better. They are morally superior. Jon fits it better than Dany. Stannis is not helping them out of morally superior nor does he have morally superior thoughts about them. Finally, they become their leader and savior.

No, you never 'listed' requirements, but every requirement you've referred to has been met. You've added in raised by nobles now. Stannis, of course, was raised by nobles.

You're giving Jon a pass for not meeting all of the requirements that apparently exist in your mind, but figuring you can just declare him a trope because declaration is apparently the highest form of argument or whatever. But then you insist that because Stannis never lived among the Northern clans, just spends time adapting to their ways to win them to their side, he's automatically excluded. So what is your point, really, trope-status by your decree? You're just insisting on which features are determinative, brushing off all the things that don't match by assertion and insisting that your position is right because we should only consider the things you think match.

Ramsay, Weeper, and Varamyr are all in the same pall park. Ramsay is not even a representative of Westerosi culture and his behavior is presented in the text by other Westerosi as unacceptable behavior. Jon is the one who is saying that Weeper needs to stop going around raping and mutilating people. Ygritte is entirely indifferent to the raids.

Tywin, Roose, Qyburn, Cersei, Gregor, the Tickler, Littlefinger, several Walders, Suggs, all Westerosi who are certainly not morally superior to the wildlings, and I could probably add to that list if I put just a little more thought into it. If you came away from the series viewing the wildlings as a morally inferior culture that we were meant to receive as such by Martin I am literally astounded by your reading.

It is relevant.

No, an unproven fan theory is obviously not relevant. Here, I'll prove it: I theorize that the wildlings are secretly an advanced alien race masquerading as wildlings for the moment, but soon they will take Jon and the NWmen away in their spaceships, leading them to a higher, better civilization. Clearly this proves that Jon is no McWhitey, and, in contast, it is the wildlings themselves that are a bunch of McWhiteys! Has my fan theory just disproven your argument?

Jake was their prophesied hero.

Not in all cases do they become the leader but just like having a relationship with one of them it strengthens it.

At no point is it said that they can't also act out of a desire to save their own society so that point would not disqualify anyone..

If Jon is not simply the wildlings' savior, and instead the wildlings are saving him in equal measure, of course it disqualifies him!

ETA:

Also,

You called Samuel Bass specifically an example of the 'McWhitey trope,' I'm not interested in your broad complaints about Hollywood. The question is, if you're calling the 'McWhitey trope' offensive to you, and this real person's real actions an example of the trope, do you find him and his actions offensive? And, if not, does that not show you that you need to engage at a deeper level than labeling someone a 'trope' because you can box them in a certain way?

[butterbumps!]

i can cause accidents, too!

I'm not sure why you're not getting this. Analysis of ASOIAF should be done exclusively through the unexamined application of TVTropes.com. When it looks like something might not fit a trope exactly (such as in this case), you should clarify the permutations of the trope in question to show that it does (not conclude that maybe the trope doesn't apply perfectly to ASOIAF, for instance), because....making sure something fits into a trope is self-evident support for........Well, I don't know, but.....profit!!!!!!

[ARYa_Nym]

You're just breezing by my point be declaring it irrelevant. I point to a history of connection, interaction, shared culture between wildlings and the North which runs completely counter to the idea of an interloper in an otherized culture and you respond, 'No, ignore this! Is trope!'

You need to do more than than simply argue by insistent assertion.

By the same token you think it's irrelevant how differently the wildlings are portrayed and the fact that Jon has to learn to accept them. Or the fact that the North still has not accepted them.

No, you never 'listed' requirements, but every requirement you've referred to has been met. You've added in raised by nobles now. Stannis, of course, was raised by nobles.

Actually most of the requirements were not met.

You're giving Jon a pass for not meeting all of the requirements that apparently exist in your mind, but figuring you can just declare him a trope because declaration is apparently the highest form of argument or whatever. But then you insist that because Stannis never lived among the Northern clans, just spends time adapting to their ways to win them to their side, he's automatically excluded. So what is your point, really, trope-status by your decree? You're just insisting on which features are determinative, brushing off all the things that don't match by assertion and insisting that your position is right because we should only consider the things you think match.

Living with them is one thing they all have in common. I said Stannis has not adapted their ways. Talking about Stannis is not really helping you to change my mind about Jon. It's deflection.

Tywin, Roose, Qyburn, Cersei, Gregor, the Tickler, Littlefinger, several Walders, Suggs, all Westerosi who are certainly not morally superior to the wildlings, and I could probably add to that list if I put just a little more thought into it. If you came away from the series viewing the wildlings as a morally inferior culture that we were meant to receive as such by Martin I am literally astounded by your reading.

They don't need to be morally superior. They're not any better or worse than the worst of the wildlings.

I said only the hero needs to be.

No, an unproven fan theory is obviously not relevant. Here, I'll prove it: I theorize that the wildlings are secretly an advanced alien race masquerading as wildlings for the moment, but soon they will take Jon and the NWmen away in their spaceships, leading them to a higher, better civilization. Clearly this proves that Jon is no McWhitey, and, in contast, it is the wildlings themselves that are a bunch of McWhiteys! Has my fan theory just disproven your argument?

Oh, so the likelihood of Jon being their leader is something you want to dismiss but you want me to listen to some made up scenario.

If Jon is not simply the wildlings' savior, and instead the wildlings are saving him in equal measure, of course it disqualifies him!

No, it doesn't because he is still preventing them from becoming wights and they are not leading him.

[E-Ro]

I'm not sure why you're not getting this. Analysis of ASOIAF should be done exclusively through the unexamined application of TVTropes.com. When it looks like something might not fit a trope exactly (such as in this case), you should clarify the permutations of the trope in question to show that it does (not conclude that maybe the trope doesn't apply perfectly to ASOIAF, for instance), because....making sure something fits into a trope is self-evident support for........Well, I don't know, but.....profit!!!!!!

That's exactly what I was trying to say here

Me being the chosen one and Jon being the chosen one are two completely different things. I'm allowed and Jon isn't because he's in a book.

Omg, what is this intimidation tactics?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

By the same token you think it's irrelevant how differently the wildlings are portrayed and the fact that Jon has to learn to accept them. Or the fact that the North still has not accepted them.

No! I don't want you to ignore these things, I want you to see them in context so you don't shove them into a box based on ignoring all else. I never said it was irrelevant that Jon has to learn to accept the wildlings, I said it was the point of his time with them to decide that they weren't the true enemies of the NW and he needed to side with them against the Others.

Actually most of the requirements were not met.

I understand that you assert this. What you're failing to do is support it.

Living with them is one thing they all have in common. I said Stannis has not adapted their ways. Talking about Stannis is not really helping you to change my mind about Jon. It's deflection.

Deflection? No, deflection is your repeated failure to respond to my points with anything other than, essentially, "no, is trope!"

The point is that you can plainly see that Stannis is not an example of the McWhitey trope, even though he fits the bill in many ways, and essentially every way that Jon does. Instead of engaging with this fact you engage with cognitive dissonance, declaring Stannis' features which do match and Jon's features which don't match the trope irrelevant.

ETA:

Re:Deflection

You called Samuel Bass specifically an example of the 'McWhitey trope,' I'm not interested in your broad complaints about Hollywood. The question is, if you're calling the 'McWhitey trope' offensive to you, and this real person's real actions an example of the trope, do you find him and his actions offensive? And, if not, does that not show you that you need to engage at a deeper level than labeling someone a 'trope' because you can box them in a certain way?

They don't need to be morally superior. They're not any better or worse than the worst of the wildlings.

I said only the hero needs to be.

The point is that the the wildlings are not established as a categorically less civilized or morally inferior culture, making your argument that Jon is somehow bringing an uncivilized people to moral truth nonsensical.

Oh, so the likelihood of Jon being their leader is something you want to dismiss but you want me to listen to some made up scenario.

No! I do not want you to listen to my made up scenario, I want you to see that you can't include made up scenarios in your argument as if they prove anything.

No, it doesn't because he is still preventing them from becoming wights and they are not leading him.

And the wildlings are helping to prevent Jon, the NW, and the whole damned human race from becoming wights. They're saviors, too.

I'm not sure why you're not getting this. Analysis of ASOIAF should be done exclusively through the unexamined application of TVTropes.com. When it looks like something might not fit a trope exactly (such as in this case), you should clarify the permutations of the trope in question to show that it does (not conclude that maybe the trope doesn't apply perfectly to ASOIAF, for instance), because....making sure something fits into a trope is self-evident support for........Well, I don't know, but.....profit!!!!!!

Silly fucking me, what was I thinking? Perhaps you are my McWhitey savior and you can bring me to the light of understanding complex characters and themes as vague tropes that I'm offended by for reasons unenumerated but surely quite valid.

[ARYa_Nym]

No! I don't want you to ignore these things, I want you to see them in context so you don't shove them into a box based on ignoring all else. I never said it was irrelevant that Jon has to learn to accept the wildlings, I said it was the point of his time with them to decide that they weren't the true enemies of the NW and he needed to side with them against the Others.

When I mention how the wildlings are different and meant to be seen as other in the text you come back with oh but they have similarities. I said yes they do but those similarities don't disqualify them.

I understand that you assert this. What you're failing to do is support it.

Examples I have already given:

Did Stannis live with the Northmen? Yes or no.

Are the Northerners drastically less advanced than Stannis like Native Americans vs. European or wildlings vs. Westeros? Yes or no.

Does Stannis have a relationship with any Northerners? Yes or no.

Does Stannis adapt their ways? Yes or no.

Does Stannis start to like them and genuinely care for them? Yes or no. Since the answer to this is no he's not morally superior.

New one:

Is Stannis conflicted about loyalty to them or his own people? Yes or no. Absolutely not. Stannis is loyal to himself first and those who consider him their king next.

Deflection? No, deflection is your repeated failure to respond to my points with anything other than, essentially, "no, is trope!"

The point is that you can plainly see that Stannis is not an example of the McWhitey trope, even though he fits the bill in many ways, and essentially every way that Jon does. Instead of engaging with this fact you instead engage with cognitive dissonance, declaring Stannis' features which do match and Jon's features which don't match the trope irrelevant.

What is the point of bringing him up? If I call a person x it does not change my mind about that person fitting x if you bring up another character and how they fit or not fit x too.

The point is that the the wildlings are not established as a categorically less civilized or morally inferior culture, making your argument that Jon is somehow bringing an uncivilized people to moral truth nonsensical.

I never said he was bringing them to moral truth.

I said that integrating them into Westeros can be a step in the direction of leading them to civilization but it was not necessary to do so. They become kneelers which will introduce institutions and values that Westeros follows.

No! I do not want you to listen to my made up scenario, I want you to see that you can't include made up scenarios in your argument as if they prove anything.

And the wildlings are helping to prevent Jon, the NW, and the whole damned human race from becoming wights. They're saviors, too.

The prospect of the wildlings seeing Jon as their leader is completely different than the reply you just gave me.

Again, what matters is if they are looking to him for guidance and that he is saving them.

[butterbumps!]

Instead of dissecting how well something in ASOIAF fits into a certain trope, and is, therefore, offensive, is it really too much to ask that the TEXT of ASOIAF itself be interrogated closely to assess whether what's actually going there-- in all it's nuances and complexities-- is truly offensive? And not because it fits a certain trope, but because something in the text itself is proffering an offensive message?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

is trope!

Look, you're really not engaging with what I'm saying. You're just repeatedly insisting that Jon is an example of a trope. You have literally not engaged with a single point I've made in a way that doesn't fall back on this inistence and simply declare that we should just ignore my points in favor of boxing Jon up into your trope box.

I'll second bumps request, once more, that you engage with the text in the way that doesn't simply insistently and unthinkingly apply a trope, but instead examines what exactly it is that you find so offensive about the text itself in a way that doesn't obscure its nuance and complexity.

Also, this:

You called Samuel Bass specifically an example of the 'McWhitey trope,' I'm not interested in your broad complaints about Hollywood. The question is, if you're calling the 'McWhitey trope' offensive to you, and this real person's real actions an example of the trope, do you find him and his actions offensive? And, if not, does that not show you that you need to engage at a deeper level than labeling someone a 'trope' because you can box them in a certain way?

[Ser Pollo Loco]

I'll second bumps request, once more, that you engage with the text in the way that doesn't simply insistently and unthinkingly apply a trope, but instead examines what exactly it is that you find so offensive about the text itself in a way that doesn't obscure its nuance and complexity.

Yeah i'm ready for some texts proof of this moral superiority. I'm not saying it's not there and i know Dany has it (make her people less bad), but Jon's all well I guess it depends on where you were standing (born)

[Dr. Pepper]

Also, this:

You called Samuel Bass specifically an example of the 'McWhitey trope,' I'm not interested in your broad complaints about Hollywood. The question is, if you're calling the 'McWhitey trope' offensive to you, and this real person's real actions an example of the trope, do you find him and his actions offensive? And, if not, does that not show you that you need to engage at a deeper level than labeling someone a 'trope' because you can box them in a certain way?

I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, OAR, when the answer is so clear. Any action of any white able bodied male is offensive. This is especially true in real life. So, since you are a white able bodied male, anything you happen to do for members of a group not your own is just trope fulfillment and is automatically offensive. That includes helping old ladies across the street. It's also automatically offensive if a member of a group not your own lends a helping hand to you, such as an old lady helping you across the street. Basically, McWhiteys offend just by being. It's why Jon is such an annoying character. Even entering into mutually beneficial relationships can't save him from the trope. Dany lucked out by getting a vagina or else she'd be totally screwed in the trope department.

[-Winterfellian-]

Instead of dissecting how well something in ASOIAF fits into a certain trope, and is, therefore, offensive, is it really too much to ask that the TEXT of ASOIAF itself be interrogated closely to assess whether what's actually going there-- in all it's nuances and complexities-- is truly offensive? And not because it fits a certain trope, but because something in the text itself is proffering an offensive message?

Why would anybody bother with this when any crappy TV tropes website can do your thinking for you?

I find it ironic that Martin has been known to say that in writing ASOIAF he wanted to let to let his imagination flow and no be restricted by the limitations a tv show might have, given his background working with tv shows and yet here he are scrapping to measure up a character of his creation exclusively by tv thropes.

ETA-

I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, OAR, when the answer is so clear. Any action of any white able bodied male is offensive. This is especially true in real life. So, since you are a white able bodied male, anything you happen to do for members of a group not your own is just trope fulfillment and is automatically offensive. That includes helping old ladies across the street. It's also automatically offensive if a member of a group not your own lends a helping hand to you, such as an old lady helping you across the street. Basically, McWhiteys offend just by being. It's why Jon is such an annoying character. Even entering into mutually beneficial relationships can't save him from the trope. Dany lucked out by getting a vagina or else she'd be totally screwed in the trope department.

LOL :d

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, OAR, when the answer is so clear. Any action of any white able bodied male is offensive. This is especially true in real life. So, since you are a white able bodied male, anything you happen to do for members of a group not your own is just trope fulfillment and is automatically offensive. That includes helping old ladies across the street. It's also automatically offensive if a member of a group not your own lends a helping hand to you, such as an old lady helping you across the street. Basically, McWhiteys offend just by being. It's why Jon is such an annoying character. Even entering into mutually beneficial relationships can't save him from the trope. Dany lucked out by getting a vagina or else she'd be totally screwed in the trope department.

You're right DP, and I'm sorry. In the interest of fully repenting, I feel I should admit that I deliberately entered this thread with the intent of saving all the primitives herein from their moral inferiority/a looming ice zombie apocalypse. I did this in full awareness of my own mcwhiteness, and I apologize to all those I've offended by acting on my trope-ish nature.

[E-Ro]

You're right DP, and I'm sorry. In the interest of fully repenting, I feel I should admit that I deliberately entered this thread with the intent of saving all the primitives herein from their moral inferiority/a looming ice zombie apocalypse. I did this in full awareness of my own mcwhiteness, and I apologize to all those I've offended by acting on my trope-ish nature.

Its ok brah brah. I forgive you. You didnt know what you were doing was causing everyone such duress.

Expanding a bit on what DP said I have to agree, like just the other day I was reading about how Bill Gates donates tons of his money to charities and tries to help out the poor and needy in Africa. the whole time I was reading about it, all I could think to myself was "wow, this guy is such a fucking asshole, doesn't he understand how goddamn offensive what hes doing is?" Classic example of the Mcwhitey trope imo.

Also we really need to re name this trope. "Mcwhitey" is sort of annoying.

[Florina Laufeyson]

I'm not sure why you keep asking this question, OAR, when the answer is so clear. Any action of any white able bodied male is offensive. This is especially true in real life. So, since you are a white able bodied male, anything you happen to do for members of a group not your own is just trope fulfillment and is automatically offensive. That includes helping old ladies across the street. It's also automatically offensive if a member of a group not your own lends a helping hand to you, such as an old lady helping you across the street. Basically, McWhiteys offend just by being. It's why Jon is such an annoying character. Even entering into mutually beneficial relationships can't save him from the trope. Dany lucked out by getting a vagina or else she'd be totally screwed in the trope department.

Obviously. Even if Jon is responsible for saving the world, it will be seen as an offensive cliched trope. Because by being, he negates how much we should take him seriously.

[nirolo]

What a splendid display of circle jerking. Bravo.