<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Love Robin wrote: wikipedia:Mary_Sue </p> </i></div>
<p>If you read beyond the 1st sentence, the article makes several references to critics who consider canon characters to be Mary Sues. So there are 2 ways to interpret this information: </p><p>1. "In fan fiction" does not necessarily imply that the term cannot be used outside of fan fiction. </p><p>2. The article's definition contradicts what the article itself says about the usage of the term. </p><p>Either interpretation fails to support the assertion that using the term in this way is somehow "wrong." I think I'll also point these problems out on the article's talk page. </p> </div> <p>It does *not* discuss that the realm of Mary-Sues are no longer Canon, only that *some* make statements regarding unpopular characters in their canons (ex. Wesley Crusher). </p><p>I will agree that *some* canon characters exhibit *traits* of a Mary Sue. However that does *not* make them "Canon Mary Sues" any more than a person trying to act/talk/walk/exhibit traits like a certain ethnicity which is not their own will *make* them that ethnicity. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote:
<div class="quote">I see. Thank you for explaining that :) However even though she's not a Mary-Sue I still don't like her ^^</i></div>
<p>I tried to explain this to you earlier, maybe you might've noticed it if you weren't so busy complaining. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>1. Oh yes, trust Wikipedia to give you the perfect picture of what a Mary-Sue character is like. You do know that definitions change as time goes on, right? Just because this one person made the Mary-Sue term a long time ago doesn't mean that it can't change to fit modern times.</i></div>
<p>I didn't make any of these arguments, & if you're responding to Love Robin, why are you quoting me? Are you drunk right now? </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>Whatever happened to "letting people believe what they believe"? I have all of the evidence I need to make a judgement on Jinora's character, and I've decided that I don't like her. Why can't you just let me have my opinion and leave me alone?</i></div>
<p>I don't know, why do people who play the Opinion Card always frame me as the bad guy for not "leaving them alone," but keep on spammin' that reply button themselves? And why is it that they never seem to have the time to defend their actual positions, but can take all of the time in the world to defend not defending things? </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>I'm not making a judgement on you, or the writers of the show.</i></div>
<p>I'll grant this for the sake of argument, but I don't really care, if you said everything <i>I</i> said was stupid, <i>but actually explained how it was wrong</i>, that would be LIGHT YEARS better than whinging about how you "don't have to explain anything," but also don't want to be criticized for it. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as you can stay in your lane. It does become a problem, however, when you let your dislike of that person grow so big that you take it out on them.</i></div>
<p>This totally contradicts later, when you say that the mere act of hating someone is harmful. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>And I don't consider my hatred of Jinora valuable information.</i></div>
<p>See, that's really telling, because if it had some logical basis, it could potentially redefine the way that people on this thread think about literature. While that wouldn't cure cancer or end world hunger, it would be immensely valuable to amateur writers. And if you include informative writing, that is literally all of us. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>But just because it isn't valuable, doesn't mean it can't be respected.</i></div>
<p>Yes, I can theoretically reward you for no reason, but...why? And is that fair to everyone who actually works for it? </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>And when I say "respected" I mean, "letting me believe what I want to believe without trying to convince me or put me down"</i></div>
<p>Okay, first of all, saying that I'm "trying to convince you" is giving yourself way too much credit. You haven't even presented a case that can be argued for or against, merely shat out a claim. You are not EVEN wrong. </p><p>Secondly, you're trying to group together a bunch of unrelated things. To respect a position is to admire it, criticism or efforts to convince don't imply either respect or disrespect, & they're not "put downs," but on that note if you use a bunch of logical fallacies, yeah, I'm gonna say you're irrational &/or dishonest. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>If I said something like "do you like apples?" and you said "no", am I going to pester you with questions to justify why you don't like apples? No.</i></div>
<p>Except that's not what's going on. You're trying to argue that something which appears to be an orange is actually an apple, refusing to explain why, & then whining when I go "you're just spouting bullshit, aren't you?" </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>To begin with, I never asked for any comment on my original post about how much I hated Jinora.</i></div>
<p>It's a public forum, the standing implication is that anyone can respond, <i>because you posted it in friggin' public.</i> </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>I don't like Jinora because she's Jinora.</i></div>
<p>And that's another thing, you have repeatedly admitted that my characterization of your argument is right, but even though this is totally circular reasoning, you still want me to call it "valid" so I don't hurt your felines. </p><p>Well, too bad, circular reasoning is invalid <i>by definition</i>. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>But opinions such as "women are less than men" or "black people are disgusting" or "gay people are wrong" are not equal, because they harm other people and infringe on the basic rights of humans.</i></div>
<p>In addition to the aforementioned contradiction with a previous passage, no they don't, institutional policies BASED ON these opinions are harmful. The opinions themselves are just words. </p><p>And if we're going to play this slippery slope game, your opinion asks me to withhold my critical thinking from a conversation if it upsets a person & their opinion has yet to be identified as harmful. This is detrimental to society if applied to other walks of life, which you indicate that it should be. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>I'm just concerned that for each reason I give as to why I don't like her, you're going to give a counterargument, which is not what I'm looking for.</i></div>
<p>So you're only interested in providing explanations if I agree, before I even hear them, not to question them. </p><p>So you are dishonest. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>I just came here because I was glad to finally find someone else who didn't like Jinora (the OP).</i></div>
<p>Well, I came here to see what the OP had to say, because I don't run on confirmation bias. </p> </div> <p>Wow. You know I actually feel sorry for you. I feel sorry that you've completely misunderstood my intentions from the beginning of this post. You keep stressing about how I'm trying to "argue a point" but that's not it. I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just saying that I don't like Jinora. Like I have said many times before, my reasons are valid to me, and if they're not valid to you I don't care. I'm not looking for an arguement, a discussion, or confirmation. So all I will say is that pity the fact that you felt the need to make this about yourself and how I'm attacking you. Good luck with your life. :) </p>

<div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Love Robin wrote: why fan fiction? because the original Mary Sue was from a Star Trek Fan fic. That is where the trope began and defined it. </p> </i></div>
<p>So? The term can't evolve? It always has to refer to Mary Sue from that particular Star Trek fan fiction? </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"><i>Otherwise Superman and Batman would be "Mary Sues"</i></div>
<p>Exactly, canon characters can EASILY full under the definition, UNLESS you stipulate the ARBITRARY condition that only fan fictions "count." This is just a special pleading fallacy. </p> </div> <p>Additionally?  The original "Mary Sue" was a <i>parody character</i>.  It would make just as much sense to say that the term is being "used wrongly" if it's applied to any character <i>presented unironically</i>.  (Which, considering how heavily it's been abused, really might <i>not</i> be a bad call to make.)
</p><p>That said: is it just me, or has no one in this thread actually <i>stated</i> that there's anything wrong with merely not liking a character (which, quite frankly, is unusual for this fandom)? </p>

<p>DEIST ZEALOT </p> <div class="quote"><i>Additionally? The original "Mary Sue" was a parody character. It would make just as much sense to say that the term is being "used wrongly" if it's applied to any character presented unironically. (Which, considering how heavily it's been abused, really might not be a bad call to make.)</i></div>
<p>From what I heard, it was a serious character, but not really as bad as the modern usage of the term implies--that aside from being young for her post & Kirk's love interest, she was a pretty average character. </p><p>No idea if any of that is accurate, of course. </p> <div class="quote"><i>That said: is it just me, or has no one in this thread actually stated that there's anything wrong with merely not liking a character (which, quite frankly, is unusual for this fandom)?</i></div>
<p>No, but "I think a claim you made doesn't actually hold up" is way less easy to complain about than "You don't like this character, you suck." </p><p>I know a lot of people get mad when a character is disliked. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't really be bothered by it. Even all of the Korra hate, I just found kind of annoying. </p><p>AWESOMEBUBBLE </p> <div class="quote"><i>You keep stressing about how I'm trying to "argue a point" but that's not it. I'm not trying to argue anything.</i></div>
<p>If you make a claim, that is an argument. It doesn't cease to be an argument just because you have weird hang-ups about actually explaining it. And that's completely leaving aside that you've posted countless paragraphs complaining about something I said & insisting I take it back. Shit, what went wrong in your development that you'll actually argue about whether or not you're arguing rather than address a simple bloody question? </p> <div class="quote"><i>So all I will say is that pity the fact that you felt the need to make this about yourself and how I'm attacking you. Good luck with your life. :)</i></div>
<p>Nobody buys this stupid speech, we all know it's something kids say when they've made fools of themselves, but are so entitled that they think that it's a form of abuse to be told they're wrong. </p><p>LOVE ROBIN </p> <div class="quote"><i>It does *not* discuss that the realm of Mary-Sues are no longer Canon, only that *some* make statements regarding unpopular characters in their canons (ex. Wesley Crusher).</i></div>
<p>What the Hell are you even saying? You know what, don't answer that, it doesn't matter. It doesn't actually matter whether the Wikipedia information supports you or I. </p><p>All that matters is that, unless you can come up with a valid reason why canon characters can't count, I reject your definition. Appeal to authority is not valid. Special pleading is not valid. The genetic fallacy is not valid. </p> <div class="quote"><i>I will agree that *some* canon characters exhibit *traits* of a Mary Sue. However that does *not* make them "Canon Mary Sues" any more than a person trying to act/talk/walk/exhibit traits like a certain ethnicity which is not their own will *make* them that ethnicity.</i></div>
<p>Can you justify this analogy by explaining what Mary Sues & ethnic groups have in common other than, supposedly, the very thing you're trying to prove? Because if not, this is a false analogy based on circular reasoning. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: </p> <div class="quote">I will agree that *some* canon characters exhibit *traits* of a Mary Sue. However that does *not* make them "Canon Mary Sues" any more than a person trying to act/talk/walk/exhibit traits like a certain ethnicity which is not their own will *make* them that ethnicity.</i></div>
<p>Can you justify this analogy by explaining what Mary Sues & ethnic groups have in common other than, supposedly, the very thing you're trying to prove? Because if not, this is a false analogy based on circular reasoning. </p> </div> <p>"Walks like a Duck" or Horses vs Zebras. Saying that something has the *traits* of something else does NOT make it that other thing. A goose "walks like a duck" while patently remaining NOT a duck. Painting a horse with zebra stripes will never make it a zebra. </p><p>So just as a person can talk and act like, say, a black person, will never make them black (ignoring the rare cases of Albinism). Just like saying a Canon Character exhibits the traits of a Mary Sue does NOT make them a Mary Sue. </p><p>So not a fallacious analogy. </p>

<p><i>Yes</i> a fallacious analogy. Words <i>do</i> change with use, they are not like racial or species categories. </p><p>Look, we could just as easily make the comparison to religious or political labels, which you <i>can</i> change. You just picked an analogy that assumed what you were trying to prove was true. That's circular reasoning, don't do that. </p><p>Also, while the <i>individual</i> cannot change their genes, given sufficient time, the <i>population's</i> race or species will change due to gene flow. And "Mary Sue" <i>denotes a category</i>, not an individual, so your analogy breaks down anyway. </p><p>This is stupid, I've shown your every argument to be a logical fallacy. No matter how much you keep stubbornly repeating yourself, 0 valid arguments x infinity is still 0. </p><p>I will no longer be responding to this nonsense. </p>

<p>Respond or not, this reply is for the benefit of others reading… </p><p>My analogy was not meant to be a "proof", but to *illustrate* the point. </p><p>Look, we have to have a touchstone, something to act as an authority. Wikipedia is just as good as any in its role as an online "encyclopedia" which we all can access. As such, the article about Mary Sues opens with "In Fan Fiction". Not "In fiction" with a reference to it originating in fan fiction. </p><p>The previous post studiously ignores the point, instead muddying the waters by trying to bring up what *other* analogies might as well fit. In essence, changing the focus of the discussion. </p>

<p><i>Not </i>a fallacious analogy. Just because definitions can change, doesn't mean this particular definition has. There is no general consensus for the definition you're proposing. It's at best a potential change to the defintion proposed by a small minority.  </p><p>You're hair-splitting to the point of absurdity. Get off your fucking high horse and quit thinking that you're the only one who is capable of making a reasoned argument. Robin's argument is vaild and you're just too butt-hurt to admit it.  </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>McJediProbie wrote: <i>Not </i>a fallacious analogy. Just because definitions can change, doesn't mean this particular definition has. There is no general consensus for the definition you're proposing. It's at best a potential change to the defintion proposed by a small minority.  </p><p>You're hair-splitting to the point of absurdity. Get off your fucking high horse and quit thinking that you're the only one who is capable of making a reasoned argument. Robin's argument is vaild and you're just too butt-hurt to admit it.  </p> </i></div>
<p>You're flip-flopping like crazy. There's "no consensus," but I'm "in the minority" & it's not invalid to claim I'm using the word wrong? </p><p>Okay, I'll "get off my fucking high horse" if you can <i>prove any of this</i>. Otherwise, I'm just considering this ad hominem. </p><p>By the way, the best explanation I've heard for a valid analogy is as follows: "X & Y share traits A & B, & on the basis of this, we predict that they also share C. But we still have to test that prediction." Following this definition, the analogy was invalid, because there's nothing to base the prediction on, it is simply assumed. </p>

<p>Since Canon Sues are totally a thing, it's pretty arbitrary whether you go with "Canon Sues are Mary Sues with the distinction of being canon while non-canon Mary Sues are typically simply called Mary Sues" or "Mary Sue exclusively refers to fanon characters while the similar BUT MEANINGFULLY DISTINCT (somehow) corresponding concept for canon characters is called Canon Sue". </p><p>And Robin, did you really have to involve race in an analogy about character tropes? "So just as a person can talk and act like, say, a black person" <i>Right</i>, a person's race totally makes them "act and talk" a certain way... That's pretty offensive, you know. </p>