Fanboy of Ironwood and Robyn

A moderate RWDEr. Though sometimes I criticize their opinions. I'm a firm believer that Adam and James weren't written correctly. I'm also fan of Attack on titan and Avatarverse

[rwbyuser24]

Should Adam Taurus have died?

Okay, new poll. This is a classic.

Personally, I think Adam deserved to die and that it was the right thing to do. After all the people he killed.

And if there are those who say that Adam was forced by Cinder to participate in Beacon, it doesn't matter. If you watch his scenes, Adam is quite willing to participate in the battle. He seems to believe it's the right thing to do, or at least, the best thing for him. His dialogues indicate that.

Added to that, his character card in RWBY: Combat Ready literally says that he wants to destroy the pillars of society (which includes the academies) and thus enslave humanity.

Think of it this way: the White Fang normally steal Dust. But under Roman, they stole even more Dust.

Just because they were forced to cooperate with Cinder doesn't mean Adam didn't want to participate. What bothered him was having to serve under a human.

And Adam didn't care about his soldiers either, since he was willing to let them all die in the bombs at Haven. If you're wondering why he seemed concerned for them, we can say that he simply can't admit that he doesn't care about their lives.

Yes, this has some headcanons involved. But it's a coherent explanation with everything we've seen.

Anyway, Adam destroyed Yang and Blake's auras, and he was about to grab Blake's weapon. It was either act fast or die.

But that's just my opinion. What do you think?

Should have Adam died?

He deserved to die and was right to kill him

He didn't deserve to die but was right to kill him

He deserve to die but wasn't right to kill him

He didn't deserve to die and wasn't right to kill him

Remaining time: 6 days 23 hours

[rwbyuser24]

There shouldn't be any problems making your alternate versions of the characters (RWBY)

Something that's happened to me is that sometimes my What Ifs ideas get judged.

I can admit that my ideas are crazy, strange, and sometimes the characters feel out of place.

Yes, I'm bad at storytelling. But I think the idea of ​​letting your imagination run wild shouldn't be judged. I mean, it's just fanfiction.

I'm not saying my ideas are superior to CRWBY's. I'm just trying to express my fictional ideas here.

And that happens sometimes. Evermorrow has been criticized for the way they write Adam, not portraying him as a toxic ex.

But it's an AU; Kaleidoarms is free to represent the characters however they choose. They're alternate versions.

Now, if a fanfic author were to say, "Hey, this part of the series was wrong. I'm going to change it," well, what's the problem? They're trying to innovate and improve things. If you think certain things are wrong with the series, why not try to improve them?

Well, I just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

[rwbyuser24]

One problem I have with Ironwood's writing is that he has no ideology

That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.

What is Ironwood?

1.-Ultra-nationalist?

He doesn't seem like it. I mean, his original plan was to unify the world and defeat Salem together. Besides, he was willing to sacrifice Mantle to achieve his goals. Some might say that nationalists neglect certain parts of the country, but Ironwood really has no prejudice against the people of Mantle.

He has nothing against them; in fact, he has never indicated that he considers them inferior. He has even collaborated with Mantleans when the situation required it and was willing to evacuate them when the situation required it.

2.-Is he a human supremacist? He doesn't seem like it. I mean, he has Marrow in the ace ops. He trusts Blake. He lets Neon Katt represent Atlas in the tournament. Even Forest admits the Happy Huntresses (which includes Fiona) could have joined the special operatives. So there doesn't seem to be any bias there.

3.-Is he a plutocrat? He collaborates with Jacques, and the Atlas military and the SDC develop technology together. But that's about it. I mean, Jacques himself fell out with Ironwood and pointed out how the embargo was costing him money.

You could say it's to control the Dust, but it's not like that was James's motivation; he simply wanted to prevent Salem from infiltrating.

"Your Dust embargo has already cost me millions! I can promise you, I have not forgotten!"

"I needed to ensure Salem couldn't infiltrate Atlas. And I wanted my military here, protecting my people."

4.-Is he a conservative? Maybe. But there are some strange things going on there.

"They were all top Atlas Academy graduates, who could've enlisted in the military, but Robyn and the Huntresses chose to stay in Mantle. She's gunning for a seat on the Kingdom's council, and when she gets it, she's going to put an end to Ironwood's tyranny!"

Apparently, he would have allowed May, a trans woman, to join the army. He also implemented laws limiting gun ownership, as Clover mentioned.

In addition, the embargo is an obvious affront to free trade.

5.-Is he someone who believes in law and order? Despite his gun being named "Due Process," Ironwood actually has a more pragmatic approach to things.

When Ruby's group robbed the Manta, James simply chuckled.

In fact, he was able to cooperate with Robyn the night the heating went out.

And, if it weren't for the fight on the Manta, the army wouldn't have arrested Robyn.

"Only Qrow is under arrest. After everything we've been through tonight, please don't make me arrest you too."

So this one isn't either.

6.-Is he an authoritarian?

Yes. But authoritarianism, more than an ideology in itself, is a way of proceeding. One can take authoritarian measures regardless of their ideology.

7.-Militarism? That seems to be the right one. He trusts his army. But at the same time, he ended up working alongside the council for a long time, even if he didn't like the idea.

"I swear if I have to sit through one more council meeting like that…"

"Actually, I've already informed them. As this is now the site of a classified military operation, it didn't even require a vote."

Besides, Ironwood went to his respective trial, something many militarists wouldn't do.

James himself ended up not declaring martial law in the "Worst Case Scenario" episode. It was a golden opportunity to seize government power and eliminate the opposition, but he didn't.

I remind you that many dictators before their respective coups didn't even have political power beforehand, and yet they still went ahead with the coup. That's unlike Ironwood, who did have the political and military power to declare martial law, and yet he decided not to do so until Gravity.

So James is a militarist, but with nuances.

My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.

And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.

Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.

In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.

If they want him to be an ultra-nationalist, then show him ignoring his country's problems, believing that everything is perfect.

"No. No, you're right. Things in Mantle have been… hard to manage lately. I'm not blind to its issues. In fact, that's what I want to talk to you about."

On the contrary, Ironwood in the canon is shown as someone who recognizes internal problems.

Show him as someone who distrusts foreigners. That he doesn't trust Ruby, for example. Like, that he asks Penny to report any "strange behavior" from her friends. Or that he favors Weiss over everyone else.

If you want to show him as a human supremacist, then show him segregating Faunus within the armed forces, and mention that he doesn't trust Blake that much. Don't just show Cordovin as a racist; show that this mentality is shared among the other officers.

If you want him to be a plutocrat, then show him forming alliances not only with Jacques, but also with other businessmen (who aren't Jacques' rivals). Show him favoring them and things like that. Instead of just going to their parties out of obligation.

"She's the only one making sense around here. Thanks for the party, Jacques."

Something that could have been useful is, for example, having him meet with the other Atlas businessmen immediately after declaring martial law to ask for their support.

Offer Jacques conditional release if he gets the SDC ships to evacuate all the Dust and resources from Mantle.

And promise the other businessmen control over the resources if they use their private armies to maintain order once Atlas flies into the atmosphere.

Heck, even show Jacques raising Dust prices, and Ironwood accepting it.

If you want him to be a conservative, then show him convincing the council to implement conservative measures.

"I suppose the council trusts him, for better or worse."

"Well, the council's so scared, they'll agree to whatever he wants. Though, some representatives from Mantle… Wait, you're… You're Weiss Schnee!"

I mean, the council trusts his judgment to a certain extent.

If you want him to be militaristic, then show him implementing curfews much earlier, with assembly restrictions. Even imposing martial law much earlier in the series.

Show how his officers, like Winter, manage areas of government beyond their jurisdictions.

In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.

Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires. I mean, we can say that he trusts in military force to solve his problems, but we've seen him try to escape with Atlas, believing he couldn't defeat Salem. Plus, he even tried to unite the world.

He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology.

That's my criticism.

EDIT:

Something I forgot to mention is that dictators usually want their ideologies to spread, not only through conquest but also by supporting governmental attempts by people of the same ideology in other countries.

Okay, obviously Ironwood isn't going to invade other kingdoms to spread his ideologies, but he might say in some scenes that he'll try to get other kingdoms to change their policies.

You know, not through intimidation, but through trade alliances and such.

Like, "In exchange for reducing my tariffs and ending the embargo, you could adopt certain political measures."

In that way those other kingdoms could be more "efficient" in their war against Salem.

I know that many dictators don't even have an ideology and only serve themselves. But Miles Luna himself pointed out that Ironwood believed what he was doing was right. So James does have ideals, just not ideologies.

Another thing, while Ironwood's embargo and border closures can be compared to real-life measures in the United States,

I think it's different. He's not closing borders out of xenophobia. He does it to prevent Salem and her minions from entering Atlas. The embargo isn't a sanction against a government unfavorable to his, nor is it a way to force its collapse. He does it, again, to prevent Salem from entering Atlas.

That's all. I needed to clarify that.

[kob131]

That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.

Yeah...and most dictators don't fall into being dictators because of existential dread at trying to fight an immortal.

James didn't become a dictator as some commentary on a greater school of thought: he became a dictator because he lost faith in others and refused to see himself in the wrong. So he charges ahead. He's not meant to stand in for an ideology or person who follows an ideology: He's moreso a personal journey of a man with all the qualities of a hero falling to his own internal issues.

My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology. And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.

How is he a fool? He's not trying to be a leader of the country and rule it: Acting as a dictator is a means to an end- 'Saving Atlas.' He fundamentally isn't a dictator like Stalin or Hitler. He has no plans to be a ruler nor an innate desire to rule. You're complaining that the facet isn't turning the microwave on when you plug it in: that's not the function here. And frankly, calling the people who follow him 'fools' because of it is frankly ridiculous and kind of petulant. How hard is it to see that they follow James because they don't want the world to end and they believe the charismatic and outwardly strong and independent general with a plan is in the right?

Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.

...And most dictators contradict their ideologies for the sake of personal enrichment immediately. It's common for political leaders to act like they have this grand belief when in reality, all they care about is themselves and thus lack any kind of coherent ideology.

In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.

... How is he not consistent?

He wants to defeat Salem and believes that his methods are always correct. He flaunts his power to earn people's affirmation. He stabs Oz in the back because he and Oz don't align. And...hey, wait a minute!

My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.

Yeah, that's not an ideology. But it is a form of philosophy, one that often rejects any and all forms of ideology. Yeah, many pragmatists have ideals...but they're the exact kind of person to devalue, deemphasize and disregard said ideals. Pragmatists are always ones who compromise their ideals for the sake of achieving their goals, with their ideals basically forming what the goals even are. But said goals do not need an ideology to exist. If your goal is 'to benefit myself' then an ideology is unnecessary. You just act out of self interest. And if your goal is, say, 'protect my nation' then you need no ideology: you simply do whatever it takes to save your nation.

The answer is staring you right in the face: James' so-called 'contradictions' are actually all about saving the people, so he'll do whatever it takes to save them. His pragmatism is his philosophy and his goals are personal.

How is this such a problem?

"But he's a dictator!"

And? I brought up that dictators betray their supposed ideologies for good reason here: For every dictator that killed a bunch of people for the sake of their utopia, every other dictator was some jackass spouting off lines of ideology like a parrot so they can hoard wealth. Not only is James a personal character, not an ideological one- He's not anything new or unrealistic.

And that's another key: James isn't an ideology or a person. He's a character trying to tell a specific story. And the story isn't about ideology: it's more about the themes in the story than a belief system. He's not a criticism of dictators- he's a man failing to live up to his heroic elements first and a vague criticism about how militaries crush individualism as a distant second.

In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.

Okay. Sounds like a lot of real life people. Probably because James is someone acting out of a personal goal, like most people.

Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires.

You know, saying this after refusing to acknowledge the existence of personal goals, goals that are primarily formed from one's own specific desires with ideology being a vague after thought- does not make you look good.

He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology. That's my criticism.

"How very interesting, sir. This, however, is a gym, not a debate room. You are in the wrong area. Please either pick up a weight, run on the threadmill or leave."

Seriously. There's no way to engage with this. You are trying to apply a criticism to writing that is only tangentially related to the criticism. This doesn't work.

Talking about philosophies in RWBY is fun and all but that's putting words to general feelings and impulses that drove the writers. They weren't researching the ethics of fighting a futile fight: they just expressed themselves. And criticizing them for not implementing an ideology into the story of a character motivated for personal reasons and general heroic impulses is the kind of stuff that gets you dogpiled by Twitter.

This whole post should have been scrapped and redone with something like 'a case for why James should have been given an ideology' and even then it runs head first into 'the writers are not obligated to change fundamentals about the story to suit you.' This criticism is all just pointing at empty air.

[rwbyuser24]

Ouch… That hurt.

But it's okay. I can see my mistakes.

Anyway. Yeah, I think that more than having a problem with Ironwood's lack of ideology, I'm just frustrated.

I mean, things are usually said about James in the fandom, and I would have liked Ironwood to have a clear ideology to resolve things.

I'd say it's two things. First, I'd like to know more about Ironwood because he's an extremely interesting character. And second, I want the fandom and RWDE to receive a clear answer to their questions.

There are people who say a lot of things: "Ironwood protects Jacques and blocks proposals that seek equality between faunus and humans" or "Ironwood is an egalitarian who guaranteed the well-being of faunus in the army."

The truth is, we just have headcanons.

A third point is that it's good for fanfiction. Let's say I have an AU in the works about Ironwood as a dictator (before Ruby's group arrives at Atlas), and I want to know how he would act if he had absolute power.

Although an ideology would have been useful. I mean, I'm also planning a post about his plans.

And since we don't know if he plans to stay up there with Atlas forever (something that's my personal headcanon) or if he plans to eventually come down to fight with the rest of Remnant once he's ready.

So it would have been useful to know, how did he plan to manage Atlas up there? I mean, did he plan to maintain a market economy? Perhaps have the military control everything, including the economy? That kind of thing (Plans) makes the characters more believable.

Besides, Ironwood has held political power for a while. How much political power does he have? 2/5, right? Okay, but then, can he make decisions on economic or social matters? Of course, his way of acting varies depending on the circumstances, but what is it like? For example, James acts according to what he believes is best for Atlas.

Okay, but what does he think is the best way to proceed?

Let's say there's a famine in a country; a libertarian would propose reducing taxes to increase consumption, encouraging more businesses, and increasing investment.

In Ironwood's case, he has to deal with many problems in the kingdom. Okay, how does he plan to do it? What does Ironwood consider to be the best way to deal with the threats to Atlas and Remnant?

Personally, I think Ironwood would be somewhat like Bismarck. Not because he's an imperialist or anything like that, but because Bismarck is someone who changes his approach depending on the situation. Bismarck was anti-socialist, but he implemented social measures to appease the labor movement. He clashed with the Catholic Church, but he also saw them as an ally against socialism.

Ironwood has conflicting ideas. But he's a pragmatic man.

But what do you think?

I'm not going to delete the post because It took me time. But I guess I would have to make a new one in the future.

[rwbyuser24]

One problem I have with Ironwood's writing is that he has no ideology

That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.

What is Ironwood?

1.-Ultra-nationalist?

He doesn't seem like it. I mean, his original plan was to unify the world and defeat Salem together. Besides, he was willing to sacrifice Mantle to achieve his goals. Some might say that nationalists neglect certain parts of the country, but Ironwood really has no prejudice against the people of Mantle.

He has nothing against them; in fact, he has never indicated that he considers them inferior. He has even collaborated with Mantleans when the situation required it and was willing to evacuate them when the situation required it.

2.-Is he a human supremacist? He doesn't seem like it. I mean, he has Marrow in the ace ops. He trusts Blake. He lets Neon Katt represent Atlas in the tournament. Even Forest admits the Happy Huntresses (which includes Fiona) could have joined the special operatives. So there doesn't seem to be any bias there.

3.-Is he a plutocrat? He collaborates with Jacques, and the Atlas military and the SDC develop technology together. But that's about it. I mean, Jacques himself fell out with Ironwood and pointed out how the embargo was costing him money.

You could say it's to control the Dust, but it's not like that was James's motivation; he simply wanted to prevent Salem from infiltrating.

"Your Dust embargo has already cost me millions! I can promise you, I have not forgotten!"

"I needed to ensure Salem couldn't infiltrate Atlas. And I wanted my military here, protecting my people."

4.-Is he a conservative? Maybe. But there are some strange things going on there.

"They were all top Atlas Academy graduates, who could've enlisted in the military, but Robyn and the Huntresses chose to stay in Mantle. She's gunning for a seat on the Kingdom's council, and when she gets it, she's going to put an end to Ironwood's tyranny!"

Apparently, he would have allowed May, a trans woman, to join the army. He also implemented laws limiting gun ownership, as Clover mentioned.

In addition, the embargo is an obvious affront to free trade.

5.-Is he someone who believes in law and order? Despite his gun being named "Due Process," Ironwood actually has a more pragmatic approach to things.

When Ruby's group robbed the Manta, James simply chuckled.

In fact, he was able to cooperate with Robyn the night the heating went out.

And, if it weren't for the fight on the Manta, the army wouldn't have arrested Robyn.

"Only Qrow is under arrest. After everything we've been through tonight, please don't make me arrest you too."

So this one isn't either.

6.-Is he an authoritarian?

Yes. But authoritarianism, more than an ideology in itself, is a way of proceeding. One can take authoritarian measures regardless of their ideology.

7.-Militarism? That seems to be the right one. He trusts his army. But at the same time, he ended up working alongside the council for a long time, even if he didn't like the idea.

"I swear if I have to sit through one more council meeting like that…"

"Actually, I've already informed them. As this is now the site of a classified military operation, it didn't even require a vote."

Besides, Ironwood went to his respective trial, something many militarists wouldn't do.

James himself ended up not declaring martial law in the "Worst Case Scenario" episode. It was a golden opportunity to seize government power and eliminate the opposition, but he didn't.

I remind you that many dictators before their respective coups didn't even have political power beforehand, and yet they still went ahead with the coup. That's unlike Ironwood, who did have the political and military power to declare martial law, and yet he decided not to do so until Gravity.

So James is a militarist, but with nuances.

My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.

And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.

Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.

In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.

If they want him to be an ultra-nationalist, then show him ignoring his country's problems, believing that everything is perfect.

"No. No, you're right. Things in Mantle have been… hard to manage lately. I'm not blind to its issues. In fact, that's what I want to talk to you about."

On the contrary, Ironwood in the canon is shown as someone who recognizes internal problems.

Show him as someone who distrusts foreigners. That he doesn't trust Ruby, for example. Like, that he asks Penny to report any "strange behavior" from her friends. Or that he favors Weiss over everyone else.

If you want to show him as a human supremacist, then show him segregating Faunus within the armed forces, and mention that he doesn't trust Blake that much. Don't just show Cordovin as a racist; show that this mentality is shared among the other officers.

If you want him to be a plutocrat, then show him forming alliances not only with Jacques, but also with other businessmen (who aren't Jacques' rivals). Show him favoring them and things like that. Instead of just going to their parties out of obligation.

"She's the only one making sense around here. Thanks for the party, Jacques."

Something that could have been useful is, for example, having him meet with the other Atlas businessmen immediately after declaring martial law to ask for their support.

Offer Jacques conditional release if he gets the SDC ships to evacuate all the Dust and resources from Mantle.

And promise the other businessmen control over the resources if they use their private armies to maintain order once Atlas flies into the atmosphere.

Heck, even show Jacques raising Dust prices, and Ironwood accepting it.

If you want him to be a conservative, then show him convincing the council to implement conservative measures.

"I suppose the council trusts him, for better or worse."

"Well, the council's so scared, they'll agree to whatever he wants. Though, some representatives from Mantle… Wait, you're… You're Weiss Schnee!"

I mean, the council trusts his judgment to a certain extent.

If you want him to be militaristic, then show him implementing curfews much earlier, with assembly restrictions. Even imposing martial law much earlier in the series.

Show how his officers, like Winter, manage areas of government beyond their jurisdictions.

In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.

Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires. I mean, we can say that he trusts in military force to solve his problems, but we've seen him try to escape with Atlas, believing he couldn't defeat Salem. Plus, he even tried to unite the world.

He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology.

That's my criticism.

EDIT:

Something I forgot to mention is that dictators usually want their ideologies to spread, not only through conquest but also by supporting governmental attempts by people of the same ideology in other countries.

Okay, obviously Ironwood isn't going to invade other kingdoms to spread his ideologies, but he might say in some scenes that he'll try to get other kingdoms to change their policies.

You know, not through intimidation, but through trade alliances and such.

Like, "In exchange for reducing my tariffs and ending the embargo, you could adopt certain political measures."

In that way those other kingdoms could be more "efficient" in their war against Salem.

I know that many dictators don't even have an ideology and only serve themselves. But Miles Luna himself pointed out that Ironwood believed what he was doing was right. So James does have ideals, just not ideologies.

Another thing, while Ironwood's embargo and border closures can be compared to real-life measures in the United States,

I think it's different. He's not closing borders out of xenophobia. He does it to prevent Salem and her minions from entering Atlas. The embargo isn't a sanction against a government unfavorable to his, nor is it a way to force its collapse. He does it, again, to prevent Salem from entering Atlas.

That's all. I needed to clarify that.

[kob131]

That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.

Yeah...and most dictators don't fall into being dictators because of existential dread at trying to fight an immortal.

James didn't become a dictator as some commentary on a greater school of thought: he became a dictator because he lost faith in others and refused to see himself in the wrong. So he charges ahead. He's not meant to stand in for an ideology or person who follows an ideology: He's moreso a personal journey of a man with all the qualities of a hero falling to his own internal issues.

My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology. And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.

How is he a fool? He's not trying to be a leader of the country and rule it: Acting as a dictator is a means to an end- 'Saving Atlas.' He fundamentally isn't a dictator like Stalin or Hitler. He has no plans to be a ruler nor an innate desire to rule. You're complaining that the facet isn't turning the microwave on when you plug it in: that's not the function here. And frankly, calling the people who follow him 'fools' because of it is frankly ridiculous and kind of petulant. How hard is it to see that they follow James because they don't want the world to end and they believe the charismatic and outwardly strong and independent general with a plan is in the right?

Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.

...And most dictators contradict their ideologies for the sake of personal enrichment immediately. It's common for political leaders to act like they have this grand belief when in reality, all they care about is themselves and thus lack any kind of coherent ideology.

In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.

... How is he not consistent?

He wants to defeat Salem and believes that his methods are always correct. He flaunts his power to earn people's affirmation. He stabs Oz in the back because he and Oz don't align. And...hey, wait a minute!

My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.

Yeah, that's not an ideology. But it is a form of philosophy, one that often rejects any and all forms of ideology. Yeah, many pragmatists have ideals...but they're the exact kind of person to devalue, deemphasize and disregard said ideals. Pragmatists are always ones who compromise their ideals for the sake of achieving their goals, with their ideals basically forming what the goals even are. But said goals do not need an ideology to exist. If your goal is 'to benefit myself' then an ideology is unnecessary. You just act out of self interest. And if your goal is, say, 'protect my nation' then you need no ideology: you simply do whatever it takes to save your nation.

The answer is staring you right in the face: James' so-called 'contradictions' are actually all about saving the people, so he'll do whatever it takes to save them. His pragmatism is his philosophy and his goals are personal.

How is this such a problem?

"But he's a dictator!"

And? I brought up that dictators betray their supposed ideologies for good reason here: For every dictator that killed a bunch of people for the sake of their utopia, every other dictator was some jackass spouting off lines of ideology like a parrot so they can hoard wealth. Not only is James a personal character, not an ideological one- He's not anything new or unrealistic.

And that's another key: James isn't an ideology or a person. He's a character trying to tell a specific story. And the story isn't about ideology: it's more about the themes in the story than a belief system. He's not a criticism of dictators- he's a man failing to live up to his heroic elements first and a vague criticism about how militaries crush individualism as a distant second.

In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.

Okay. Sounds like a lot of real life people. Probably because James is someone acting out of a personal goal, like most people.

Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires.

You know, saying this after refusing to acknowledge the existence of personal goals, goals that are primarily formed from one's own specific desires with ideology being a vague after thought- does not make you look good.

He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology. That's my criticism.

"How very interesting, sir. This, however, is a gym, not a debate room. You are in the wrong area. Please either pick up a weight, run on the threadmill or leave."

Seriously. There's no way to engage with this. You are trying to apply a criticism to writing that is only tangentially related to the criticism. This doesn't work.

Talking about philosophies in RWBY is fun and all but that's putting words to general feelings and impulses that drove the writers. They weren't researching the ethics of fighting a futile fight: they just expressed themselves. And criticizing them for not implementing an ideology into the story of a character motivated for personal reasons and general heroic impulses is the kind of stuff that gets you dogpiled by Twitter.

This whole post should have been scrapped and redone with something like 'a case for why James should have been given an ideology' and even then it runs head first into 'the writers are not obligated to change fundamentals about the story to suit you.' This criticism is all just pointing at empty air.

[choppedrunawaytheorist]

OP, bro. We have a fucking song called Hero that spell James entire thematic point on the story, his "ideology" is the fallen hero that did more harm than good with his well intentioned but wrong decisions. We can definetly argued how well that was executed, but the bare bones is very basic and obvious.

[rwbyuser24]

That just says Ironwood had good intentions. Many people in real life have good intentions and still hold different ideologies. Ironwood is utilitarian, obviously. But that doesn't define him as a whole.

I mean, conservative, libertarian, liberal, progressive? What is he? Egalitarian? Inclusive?

Left-wing? Right-wing? Centrist, perhaps?

The theme of Ironwood's character is the "fallen hero," but a theme is different from a political or economic ideology. I mean, a fallen hero could belong to any ideology.

So I don't know. If you know his political ideology, I'd appreciate it if you told me.

[rwbyuser24]

WTF? Why is Robyn Hill associated with Right-wing figures?

Two posts in such a short time. It seems like I have a lot of free time when in reality I don't.

Whatever.

I want to make this post because I feel that some people misunderstand Robyn Hill's character. Which wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the type of misinterpretation being made.

Okay, Robyn (and the HH) are being compared to those right-wing politicians and activists who reject health and quarantine rules.

Well, Ironwood's security measures are usually compared to the health measures during the pandemic. I think it's somewhat different, but oh well. Anyway.

I disagree with this. Robyn never encouraged her fans to defy James's security rules. You might point out that she herself violated the security rules, and that's correct. What's going on here?

Well, it's a particular situation.

Robyn was already committing an illegal act. Why even obey Ironwood's orders?

Now, regarding her illegal actions, Robyn has been compared to the far-right protesters who stormed the Capitol when it became clear Trump had lost the election.

Is it the same thing? There's a difference: Robyn isn't rebelling because she lost the election. She's committing illegal acts because she believes Ironwood tried to assassinate her and her followers.

For the HH point of view, Ironwood had just become an authoritarian dictator. How legitimate is Ironwood's rule?

Now, what did Robyn want?

"It seems Robyn has emboldened our suppliers in Mantle. They're refusing to sell us provisions until the city is adequately repaired. With Robyn redistributing the goods her team has stolen, the Amity Project is completely stalled."

It's not stated that Robyn wanted to overthrow James. The word is that she wanted to force him to repair the city and finish the wall. She also wanted to redistribute the resources she stole.

Robyn isn't acting illegally because she doesn't like the elected government. She's acting illegally because she believes the government is a tyranny. (I mean, there's evidence that Penny killed her followers. There's security footage that shows that.)

Are Robyn's actions right? I don't know. But I wouldn't compare her to those who attacked the Capitol. They're different kinds of illegality.

Are the people who support Robyn in the FNDM authoritarian? I don't think so.

What about before the massacre at the election? Well, she tried to steal a supply truck. She made it clear that she was going to get those supplies even if it meant stealing them.

"I think you've misjudged the situation. One way or another, these supplies are going to get where they're supposed to go," Mantle said.

Okay. More than authoritarian, I'd say Robyn was desperate. After all, the wall hadn't been repaired.

Sure, there's military support there in Mantle, but we've still seen Grimm lurking inside the city. So yes, those resources are necessary. It's a plot hole that Ironwood isn't repairing the wall. But considering the world Robyn lives in, she obviously believes Mantle needs the resources.

Regarding wanting to know the truth about Amity Tower. Well, that's so Mantle knows the truth. It's not just her desires; it's so people know why they're suffering.

"The rest of the world? It's hurting us. The people of Atlas are suffering, and they want to know why."

Regarding starting the fight at the Manta. Well, that's more reckless than a political action. In fact, arresting Qrow wasn't even the right thing to do; he hadn't done anything so far. (I remind you that Ironwood wasn't arresting them for breaking laws or keeping secrets, but for opposing his plan.)

I know she called Marrow "Wags." Well, that's more of an unfortunate comment than a political one.

And while she did separate the Faunus from Atlas and Mantle in her words, I think that has more to do with her being aware of the discrimination they suffer (which excludes them) than with her wanting to exclude them herself.

Regarding her fans, we've seen them cause riots (something she herself condemned). We've seen them destroy Atlesian robots. This happened because they believed Atlas had cut off the heating, and obviously they were going to want to take it out on Atlas military robots.

I know these people were approaching Nora in a threatening manner.

But, well, one thing is harming a military robot and another is harming another person. I don't think they wanted to hurt Nora. They simply desperately wanted help.

Now, what else? I think that's all. I can understand that you don't like Robyn's character.

But associating her with political ideas you don't like? I think that's where you're projecting your own biases.

Most people in the RWDE are left-leaning and progressive. So if they don't like a character, to villainize them they try to associate them with the ideologies they dislike.

The same thing happens with the FNDM. They associate the characters they don't like with the right wing.

I can understand the attitude. But at the same time, we have to be aware that people with whom you might agree ideologically can also do bad things.

[dappercat123]

Robyn was committing illegal acts to get supplies to mantle that mantle desperately needed, it wasn’t about the election it was about the material goods she was taking.

And mantle refusing to give ironwood supplies without assurances that those supplies will be used for their assigned purpose, we know that ironwood was lying to the council about these supplies as well, in essence he was embezzling funds.

[rwbyuser24]

Not sure to say that he was lying about them. Robyn says that those resources had to go to Mantle but I think it's a matter of "They are needed to Mantle".

If Ironwood was lying to the council, wouldn't that have been mentioned by the council in James' trial. I mean, Robyn would have probably told them.

And, as a matter of fact they are aware of the secret Amity Project. They just don't know the details about like what it is.

So, they probably know that resources are being used in Amity.

"I'm afraid of the ever-growing list of classified information you seem to be keeping. I asked our fellow councilmen here to shed some light on your Amity Colosseum project and, as it turns out, they know about as much as I do."

"The Amity Project will help with all of the issues you've presented, but you have to understand that discretion is a top priority at this time."

The way I see it, James (As general and councilman) has control over the military resources. Considering how the resources for the wall are somewhat related to Mantle's defenses. Then I think that simply Ironwood decided to deviate them to something else (Amity Tower project).

It's like if the one in charge of the military spending instead of buying tanks uses the money to buy planes.

But well, the series was vague about it.

[rwbyuser24]

WTF? Why is Robyn Hill associated with Right-wing figures?

Two posts in such a short time. It seems like I have a lot of free time when in reality I don't.

Whatever.

I want to make this post because I feel that some people misunderstand Robyn Hill's character. Which wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the type of misinterpretation being made.

Okay, Robyn (and the HH) are being compared to those right-wing politicians and activists who reject health and quarantine rules.

Well, Ironwood's security measures are usually compared to the health measures during the pandemic. I think it's somewhat different, but oh well. Anyway.

I disagree with this. Robyn never encouraged her fans to defy James's security rules. You might point out that she herself violated the security rules, and that's correct. What's going on here?

Well, it's a particular situation.

Robyn was already committing an illegal act. Why even obey Ironwood's orders?

Now, regarding her illegal actions, Robyn has been compared to the far-right protesters who stormed the Capitol when it became clear Trump had lost the election.

Is it the same thing? There's a difference: Robyn isn't rebelling because she lost the election. She's committing illegal acts because she believes Ironwood tried to assassinate her and her followers.

For the HH point of view, Ironwood had just become an authoritarian dictator. How legitimate is Ironwood's rule?

Now, what did Robyn want?

"It seems Robyn has emboldened our suppliers in Mantle. They're refusing to sell us provisions until the city is adequately repaired. With Robyn redistributing the goods her team has stolen, the Amity Project is completely stalled."

It's not stated that Robyn wanted to overthrow James. The word is that she wanted to force him to repair the city and finish the wall. She also wanted to redistribute the resources she stole.

Robyn isn't acting illegally because she doesn't like the elected government. She's acting illegally because she believes the government is a tyranny. (I mean, there's evidence that Penny killed her followers. There's security footage that shows that.)

Are Robyn's actions right? I don't know. But I wouldn't compare her to those who attacked the Capitol. They're different kinds of illegality.

Are the people who support Robyn in the FNDM authoritarian? I don't think so.

What about before the massacre at the election? Well, she tried to steal a supply truck. She made it clear that she was going to get those supplies even if it meant stealing them.

"I think you've misjudged the situation. One way or another, these supplies are going to get where they're supposed to go," Mantle said.

Okay. More than authoritarian, I'd say Robyn was desperate. After all, the wall hadn't been repaired.

Sure, there's military support there in Mantle, but we've still seen Grimm lurking inside the city. So yes, those resources are necessary. It's a plot hole that Ironwood isn't repairing the wall. But considering the world Robyn lives in, she obviously believes Mantle needs the resources.

Regarding wanting to know the truth about Amity Tower. Well, that's so Mantle knows the truth. It's not just her desires; it's so people know why they're suffering.

"The rest of the world? It's hurting us. The people of Atlas are suffering, and they want to know why."

Regarding starting the fight at the Manta. Well, that's more reckless than a political action. In fact, arresting Qrow wasn't even the right thing to do; he hadn't done anything so far. (I remind you that Ironwood wasn't arresting them for breaking laws or keeping secrets, but for opposing his plan.)

I know she called Marrow "Wags." Well, that's more of an unfortunate comment than a political one.

And while she did separate the Faunus from Atlas and Mantle in her words, I think that has more to do with her being aware of the discrimination they suffer (which excludes them) than with her wanting to exclude them herself.

Regarding her fans, we've seen them cause riots (something she herself condemned). We've seen them destroy Atlesian robots. This happened because they believed Atlas had cut off the heating, and obviously they were going to want to take it out on Atlas military robots.

I know these people were approaching Nora in a threatening manner.

But, well, one thing is harming a military robot and another is harming another person. I don't think they wanted to hurt Nora. They simply desperately wanted help.

Now, what else? I think that's all. I can understand that you don't like Robyn's character.

But associating her with political ideas you don't like? I think that's where you're projecting your own biases.

Most people in the RWDE are left-leaning and progressive. So if they don't like a character, to villainize them they try to associate them with the ideologies they dislike.

The same thing happens with the FNDM. They associate the characters they don't like with the right wing.

I can understand the attitude. But at the same time, we have to be aware that people with whom you might agree ideologically can also do bad things.

[rwbyuser24]

I absolutely refuse to take anyone who says that the citizens of Vacuo throwing rocks at the orphans from Mantle was "cartoonishly evil" or "bad writing" seriously. Locals harassing refugees is nothing new, and it's more than a little naive for people to say that it could never happen. In fact, one of my senior English classmates from highschool enlisted in the U.S. army during our first semester, and one of the two Afghanistan deployments had him serving guard duty at a refugee camp that mostly houses Syrian refugees (our senior year was late-2013 to mid-2014, back at the height of the U.S. Afghanistan occupation and the Syrian civil war). The Afghan villagers who lived in a small village near the camp were so entitled that they thought the food, water, and medical care that the aid workers were giving to the refugees should've gone to them instead. In fact, they were so angry at the Syrian refugees for "eating our food, drinking our water, and making us sick" (their words, not mine) that they took their anger out on the refugees by pelting them with rotten fruits and vegetables while calling them racial slurs. Stone-throwing sounds much less evil by comparison.

Oh, what happened? Did someone say something? Did I say something? I don't remember. Maybe someone said something about it.

Sorry, I tend not to check my notifications very often.

And yes, it's something that happens. If bigotry already exists, imagine it towards people whose ancestors used to colonize your land. What the heck, we've seen SDC (which was founded after the great war) installations in Vacuo.

Obviously, there's going to be resentment.

There are people who just don't mature. There are people who hate because of past and even current feuds whole populations. Obviously, it's something that happens.

Besides, this isn't even a typical refugee crisis. Here, literally an entire nation fled to another country. There's going to be a shortage of resources.

So, xenophobia exists. There's already a problem from the past and present between Vacuans and Atlesians. It's a massive refugee crisis.

I'm not saying it's justifiable, but I think it makes sense that it happened.

Now, I don't know when the citizens of Vacuo attacked the Mantle orphans. I mean, I don't remember that happening in the epilogue.

[rwbyuser24]

Thank you for not being afraid to share your thoughts on RWDE being naive sometimes. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that, and I'd also like to add in that sometimes RWDE can display a lack of empathy. Namely, if the show has characters in certain situations that they don't like, some of them immediately decide that it's "bad writing", rather than taking into account the possibility of any fans if the series that are in similar situations. For instance, several members of the main and critics subs argue that it's bad writing for Summer and Ruby to have the surname Rose instead of Taiyang's surname of Xiao-Long. That's actually very insulting to my family because my paternal uncle (my dad's fraternal twin brother) was so devastated by his first wife cheating on him, bossing around my grandmother, and cheating him out of child visits with their daughter (my cousin) by working weekend overtime whenever she could that when he married his second wife (my aunt) he asked her to keep her maiden name to help him distance himself from it. Because of that, the two daughters they had together (my two younger half-cousins) have her maiden name instead of my uncle's surname.

Oh… I'm sorry, this is the first time I've read this. I think I should have replied sooner.

Well. I can understand some of their ideals to a certain extent.

Even if I don't share them, I can understand why they think that way.

But still, it's incredibly messed up. I mean, in the region where I live, there have been subversive groups that have caused a lot of harm to the civilian population.

That's why I don't have much of a problem with the White Fang being villains. Because people like that exist in real life.

Certainly, the problem in writing was a lack of nuance and complexity in the way the issues were handled.

But the basis of a subversive group that proclaims itself a defender of the oppressed, has revolutionary ideas, and then attacks innocent people.

… I've seen that before.

That's also why I don't really like it when they justify the White Fang. I mean, I can understand Sienna. But I've seen people try to minimize Adam's actions. I don't know, to me that sounds like an apologist of terrorism.

Imagine if I said in the United States that it's okay for the Black Panther Party to destroy a military or police academy. People would treat me like I was crazy.

And well, yes, I feel that sometimes there's a general lack of empathy. I was discussing it with a friend (Marleynnation62 is his name on Reddit) and something he told me is that there's an empathy problem with the RWDE.

They have a lot of empathy for Adam and the White Fang, but they have little empathy for the victims of Adam and the White Fang.

[rwbyuser24]

One problem I have with Ironwood's writing is that he has no ideology

That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.

What is Ironwood?

1.-Ultra-nationalist?

He doesn't seem like it. I mean, his original plan was to unify the world and defeat Salem together. Besides, he was willing to sacrifice Mantle to achieve his goals. Some might say that nationalists neglect certain parts of the country, but Ironwood really has no prejudice against the people of Mantle.

He has nothing against them; in fact, he has never indicated that he considers them inferior. He has even collaborated with Mantleans when the situation required it and was willing to evacuate them when the situation required it.

2.-Is he a human supremacist? He doesn't seem like it. I mean, he has Marrow in the ace ops. He trusts Blake. He lets Neon Katt represent Atlas in the tournament. Even Forest admits the Happy Huntresses (which includes Fiona) could have joined the special operatives. So there doesn't seem to be any bias there.

3.-Is he a plutocrat? He collaborates with Jacques, and the Atlas military and the SDC develop technology together. But that's about it. I mean, Jacques himself fell out with Ironwood and pointed out how the embargo was costing him money.

You could say it's to control the Dust, but it's not like that was James's motivation; he simply wanted to prevent Salem from infiltrating.

"Your Dust embargo has already cost me millions! I can promise you, I have not forgotten!"

"I needed to ensure Salem couldn't infiltrate Atlas. And I wanted my military here, protecting my people."

4.-Is he a conservative? Maybe. But there are some strange things going on there.

"They were all top Atlas Academy graduates, who could've enlisted in the military, but Robyn and the Huntresses chose to stay in Mantle. She's gunning for a seat on the Kingdom's council, and when she gets it, she's going to put an end to Ironwood's tyranny!"

Apparently, he would have allowed May, a trans woman, to join the army. He also implemented laws limiting gun ownership, as Clover mentioned.

In addition, the embargo is an obvious affront to free trade.

5.-Is he someone who believes in law and order? Despite his gun being named "Due Process," Ironwood actually has a more pragmatic approach to things.

When Ruby's group robbed the Manta, James simply chuckled.

In fact, he was able to cooperate with Robyn the night the heating went out.

And, if it weren't for the fight on the Manta, the army wouldn't have arrested Robyn.

"Only Qrow is under arrest. After everything we've been through tonight, please don't make me arrest you too."

So this one isn't either.

6.-Is he an authoritarian?

Yes. But authoritarianism, more than an ideology in itself, is a way of proceeding. One can take authoritarian measures regardless of their ideology.

7.-Militarism? That seems to be the right one. He trusts his army. But at the same time, he ended up working alongside the council for a long time, even if he didn't like the idea.

"I swear if I have to sit through one more council meeting like that…"

"Actually, I've already informed them. As this is now the site of a classified military operation, it didn't even require a vote."

Besides, Ironwood went to his respective trial, something many militarists wouldn't do.

James himself ended up not declaring martial law in the "Worst Case Scenario" episode. It was a golden opportunity to seize government power and eliminate the opposition, but he didn't.

I remind you that many dictators before their respective coups didn't even have political power beforehand, and yet they still went ahead with the coup. That's unlike Ironwood, who did have the political and military power to declare martial law, and yet he decided not to do so until Gravity.

So James is a militarist, but with nuances.

My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.

And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.

Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.

In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.

If they want him to be an ultra-nationalist, then show him ignoring his country's problems, believing that everything is perfect.

"No. No, you're right. Things in Mantle have been… hard to manage lately. I'm not blind to its issues. In fact, that's what I want to talk to you about."

On the contrary, Ironwood in the canon is shown as someone who recognizes internal problems.

Show him as someone who distrusts foreigners. That he doesn't trust Ruby, for example. Like, that he asks Penny to report any "strange behavior" from her friends. Or that he favors Weiss over everyone else.

If you want to show him as a human supremacist, then show him segregating Faunus within the armed forces, and mention that he doesn't trust Blake that much. Don't just show Cordovin as a racist; show that this mentality is shared among the other officers.

If you want him to be a plutocrat, then show him forming alliances not only with Jacques, but also with other businessmen (who aren't Jacques' rivals). Show him favoring them and things like that. Instead of just going to their parties out of obligation.

"She's the only one making sense around here. Thanks for the party, Jacques."

Something that could have been useful is, for example, having him meet with the other Atlas businessmen immediately after declaring martial law to ask for their support.

Offer Jacques conditional release if he gets the SDC ships to evacuate all the Dust and resources from Mantle.

And promise the other businessmen control over the resources if they use their private armies to maintain order once Atlas flies into the atmosphere.

Heck, even show Jacques raising Dust prices, and Ironwood accepting it.

If you want him to be a conservative, then show him convincing the council to implement conservative measures.

"I suppose the council trusts him, for better or worse."

"Well, the council's so scared, they'll agree to whatever he wants. Though, some representatives from Mantle… Wait, you're… You're Weiss Schnee!"

I mean, the council trusts his judgment to a certain extent.

If you want him to be militaristic, then show him implementing curfews much earlier, with assembly restrictions. Even imposing martial law much earlier in the series.

Show how his officers, like Winter, manage areas of government beyond their jurisdictions.

In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.

Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires. I mean, we can say that he trusts in military force to solve his problems, but we've seen him try to escape with Atlas, believing he couldn't defeat Salem. Plus, he even tried to unite the world.

He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology.

That's my criticism.

EDIT:

Something I forgot to mention is that dictators usually want their ideologies to spread, not only through conquest but also by supporting governmental attempts by people of the same ideology in other countries.

Okay, obviously Ironwood isn't going to invade other kingdoms to spread his ideologies, but he might say in some scenes that he'll try to get other kingdoms to change their policies.

You know, not through intimidation, but through trade alliances and such.

Like, "In exchange for reducing my tariffs and ending the embargo, you could adopt certain political measures."

In that way those other kingdoms could be more "efficient" in their war against Salem.

I know that many dictators don't even have an ideology and only serve themselves. But Miles Luna himself pointed out that Ironwood believed what he was doing was right. So James does have ideals, just not ideologies.

Another thing, while Ironwood's embargo and border closures can be compared to real-life measures in the United States,

I think it's different. He's not closing borders out of xenophobia. He does it to prevent Salem and her minions from entering Atlas. The embargo isn't a sanction against a government unfavorable to his, nor is it a way to force its collapse. He does it, again, to prevent Salem from entering Atlas.

That's all. I needed to clarify that.

[rwbyuser24]

Is the White Fang left-wing or right-wing?

I made a post about this a while ago, but now I want to include polls. Also, my political thinking has evolved.

My idea was the following: There are left-wing nationalists like Nasser or Tito.

Okay. Nationalism isn't inherently right-wing then.

There are left-wing nationalists who lead national liberation movements. That is, they try to make their country free either from the authoritarian governments that dominate it or from colonialist/imperialist forces.

National liberation movements. Sienna Khan doesn't lead a national liberation movement. She doesn't want to liberate Menagerie from external forces or authoritarian governments.

But she does lead a liberation movement. That is, a Faunus liberation movement. Could we consider it a left-wing movement?

Following that logic, Adam Taurus, being a White Fang extremist, someone who took White Fang ideology to the next level… Could he be considered far-left?

Of course. Because it's a supremacist organization, Adam's White Fang could be considered far-right.

Is the political right NECESSARILY supremacist? Or rather, racially supremacist? Well, there are those who support right-wing libertarian or conservative movements and are racial minorities.

Now, you might say that these people don't know what they're doing and that they're wrong. They don't know what's best for them. But the point is that being right-wing doesn't necessarily make you believe in a superior race. Again, I don't want to argue about whether it's beneficial for minorities or not.

So, I'll leave it at that. As always, I'd like you to debate this and tell me what you think. EDIT: I accidentally wrote "White supremacist" instead of simply "supremacist". I already corrected it. I curse you google translator!

Where is Adam Taurus (And his White fang faction) in the political spectrum?

Left wing

Right wing

Voting ended onMay 16

[rwbyuser24]

Who was more justified? White Fang (under Sienna's command) or the Happy Huntresses?

A question that will surprise many. But the FNDM supports the HH, while the RWDE supports the Sienna's White fang.

So I wanted to know, who has more support? Sienna allowed Adam Taurus to rise, unlike Robyn.

But Robyn didn't have as great a contribution as Sienna. (She was overshadowed by Ruby's group and others).

I could write a long post comparing them. But both are very ambiguous characters. We've hardly seen anything of Robyn. While with Sienna, we can only assume what her tactics were beyond what has been mentioned.

So I'll leave it up to you. Discuss. Remember, we are not counting Adam's faction except if Sienna allowed that behavior (So the attack on Beacon doesn't count).

Which one was more justified

Sienna's White fang

The Happy Huntresses

Voting ended onMay 9

[rwbyuser24]

In RWBY (Atlas more specifically), would it be necessary to allow free use of weapons?

A somewhat random question, I know. But I was looking into the criticism Ironwood is getting for arresting Ruby's group.

And one of the reasons for their arrest was "unauthorized use of weapons."

That sparked controversy because, well: Should the open carrying of weapons be prohibited in Atlas Kingdom?

Considering their problem with the Grimm, wouldn't that get them into trouble?

Some say it was necessary considering the risk of Salem's Inner Circle infiltrating Atlas.

But you could also argue that having weapons is necessary for self-defense against members of Salem's Inner Circle.

Personally, I come from a country where you need a license to own weapons, so I don't really think there's much of a problem.

I'm feeling a bit lazy, I want you all to debate this.

Was Ironwood's measure about the use of weapons justified?

Yes, safety was necessary in the kingdom

No, the citizens deserve to defend themselves

Voting ended onMar 26

[rwbyuser24]

A question to the fandom: why couldn't Adam be an anti villain?

It's often said that the RWDE wanted Adam to be like Vergil or Magneto.

Personally, I don't know much about Vergil, so we'll focus on Magneto.

Why couldn't Adam be an anti-villain like him? I'm not talking about an anti-hero, but a morally ambiguous villain.

The fandom offers several arguments to this effect.

Adam was never intended to be a morally ambiguous character.

Well, just because he wasn't conceived that way doesn't mean he shouldn't have been. There are various arguments that support why Adam should have been an anti-villain. You know, why that was the best decision for the plot.

But I'll elaborate on that later.

2.-Adam was always established as irredeemable.

Well… not entirely. It's only in the fall of Beacon that he's shown as an irredeemable person. We can say that's when the character truly becomes a character, but he'd been around for a while.

Adam tried to blow up the SDC train. But it's not like there weren't morally ambiguous characters who would be willing to do that. I mean, it's pretty much implied that those were humans from the SDC. It's evil, but again, it's something the Yaegerists would do.

It's mentioned that Adam's world (his ideal vision) wouldn't be perfect for everyone.

"But of course, his idea of ​​a perfect future turned out to be not perfect for everyone."

Well, that means that vision would be good for SOME. (Although, of course, not for everyone).

Blake also talks about how Adam became radicalized:

"It wasn't in an instant, it was gradual - little choices that began to pile up. He told me not to worry. At first, they were accidents, then it was self-defense. Before long, even I began to think he was right."

Which, well, as I pointed out, simply means that Adam's actions were becoming increasingly radical.

And really, again, Adam is a villain. But it's not as if there aren't villains who commit radical acts and are still morally gray.

3.-Adam is the representation of the abuse victim turned perpetrator.

Yes… And he could have been that, for humanity. Why did he necessarily have to be an abuser with Blake? I mean, he could have been obsessed with hurting humanity.

The White Fang plot is about racism and terrorism. Why divert attention to other issues? Why use Adam to push those kinds of plots?

Adam is the leader of a terrorist faction of the White Fang. Doesn't it make sense for him to remain focused on that and for that to be the main focus of his character?

In fact, the most skillful decision would be to make Adam's obsession Weiss, not Blake.

4.- Adam's main character trait is being Blake's toxic ex-boyfriend. You can't simply remove that from his character.

Let's see. During the first two volumes, Adam is more conceived as an important leader of the White Fang. In the fall of Beacon, he's there to torture Blake, yes, but also to cause the academy's downfall. In volumes 4 and 5, he's more of a threat because he's a leader of the White Fang. It's only in volume 6 that the confrontation with Blake is entirely due to him being Blake's ex-boyfriend.

And well, that's a decision the writers made. They weren't obligated to do things that way.

5.-Removing Adam's abusive side diminishes Blake's character. It's empowering to see Blake defeat her abuser.

Okay, this is getting a bit personal, but: Was Adam's subplot as an abuser really handled well? I mean, we barely get any dialogue from Blake:

"He used to get in my head, make me feel small. But now I see he just wanted to pull me down to his size."

And the scene where Adam is manipulative and plays the victim is in Adam's character short.

We hardly saw Adam being abusive towards Blake. I'm not saying there weren't any scenes, but they were very few and far between.

NOTE: I'M REFERRING TO "DURING THEIR RELATIONSHIP."

Adam, as a toxic ex-boyfriend, continued to be abusive, but that's more like an ex-boyfriend seeking revenge. I'm talking about Adam as a boyfriend, that is, while they were in a relationship.

And anyway, if we remove Blake's subplot as a victim of abuse, we can focus on her as Adam's ideological rival.

Couldn't we just use another character as Blake's abuser? I mean, that way we avoid having to use Adam for that.

What's the problem with Adam being an abuser?

Besides the details I already mentioned, the issue is that it has problematic implications. After all, the Faunus subplot is based on the 1950s African American movement. Some people have stated that they see it as a "racist caricature" of the Black Panther Party.

Ultimately, it's not just Adam; it's his entire faction that takes control of the organization and follows him in his campaign of terror. And well, Adam is the face of the White Fang.

Conclusions

This is my own question: Why couldn't Adam be a morally gray villain? I ask the community to explain this to us.

Note: Again, I was talking about the details of their relationship when they were a couple. We have almost no details about that. We mostly see how things were after the breakup.

[dappercat123]

Nobody said he couldn’t, if that was the story the writers wanted to tell they would have told it, but it’s not the story they told

Salem could’ve been the good guy, semblances could just not be a thing, literally anything COULD happen but that’s not how the story went.

Personally I think the biggest issue with the white fang subplot revolves around sienna and ghira, not so much Blake and Adam.

[rwbyuser24]

To be honest… I also like the idea of ​​Adam as someone despicable. Like a kind of "General Grievous." You know, someone marked by tragedy who commits unforgivable acts.

But I feel that many in the FNDM community don't understand the point of the criticisms of Adam's writing.

The problem isn't "Adam used to be like Vergil and Magneto and then they changed the character," the problem is that Adam could have been more, he could have been a more nuanced character and not so one-dimensional.

That, added to the already mentioned problems of having a character of his nature as an irredeemable villain.

I mean, Adam was always the greatest exponent of "Faunus uprising." The White Fang wears his mask, he's the leader of the faction our heroes fought against during the first volumes, he took control of the entire organization, etc.

He's the equivalent of "insert revolutionary leader of some oppressed minority" but Faunus.

Now, if Blake and Ghira had been written differently, there wouldn't be so much of a problem. You know, if they were more active in their fight for the faunus and against human supremacy.

That would have made the White Fang storyline more nuanced.

And well, I also mentioned the problems with Adam being Blake's ex-boyfriend.

I understand the idea the writers wanted to work with, but I think that idea was bad and poorly executed.

[psyga315]

Damn, Tumblr really is the refugee camp for fanfiction writers.

[rwbyuser24]

I mean, it's not like Team RWBY didn't break the rules later on. What difference does it make if they break the rules to take down Cardin?

And how was Ironwood oppressing Mantle, by the way?

[dappercat123]

The embargo, diverting supplies mantle desperately needed, recruiting the majority of skilled hunters to the military, the fucking level segregation that he didn’t use his two council seats to try and combat!? Hello!?

That being said the lunchroom scene still doesn’t men’s team RWBY look great, and I’m certain the context from the EC Meyers book was added retroactively to try and fix that scene

[rwbyuser24]

The embargo isn't necessarily oppressive over Mantle.

An embargo can mean many things, but what I understand is that Atlas simply isn't allowed to trade with other kingdoms.

Okay, that's an authoritarian measure since it doesn't allow free trade between nations.

But I wouldn't say that oppresses Mantle. I mean, that oppresses the entire kingdom. Jacques was losing money because of it too.

Regarding diverting resources from Mantle, well, he also assigned military personnel to Mantle: Huntsmen, soldiers, robots, Penny, etc.

Recruiting huntsmen into the army… It's not like he's forcing them to join. We've seen that the Happy Huntresses are huntresses who aren't part of the army.

And I don't consider it oppressive specifically against Mantle either. If anything, you could consider it an authoritarian measure against the entire kingdom.

Regarding the issue of segregation, to be honest… I always hated how Ironwood's power on the council was never clearly defined. I mean, he can impose security measures (border closures, embargoes), control the military and the academy. But can he control the economy in addition to security measures? Can he control labor rights?

So far, nothing the wealthy residents of Atlas have done seems to be illegal. So I don't know if Ironwood could arrest them.

Yes, Jacques seems like a criminal, but it seems like the kind of thing that can be sorted out with a lawyer (like the brand on Adam's face). I mean, even Amoncio Glass is free, and it's implied that he has connections.

I have a very specific point about this. If Ironwood could always end segregation, why didn't Blake or Nora criticize him for it? I mean, why not?

But even if Ironwood were responsible for segregation, I wouldn't consider that oppressive towards Mantle. We've seen "We don't serve faunus" signs in the city above.

Generally, I was referring to, "How does Ironwood oppress Mantle specifically?" I mean, the city itself. Not things that oppressed everyone in the kingdom.

Regarding Cardin, well, I did like that Blake was mentioned in the novel as helping Velvet. (Although it sounds like an attempt to repair the damage of the original series. With Blake simply doing nothing.).

Although I did dislike Velvet for not wanting to upset the racists.

[psyga315]

Damn, Tumblr really is the refugee camp for fanfiction writers.

[rwbyuser24]

I mean, it's not like Team RWBY didn't break the rules later on. What difference does it make if they break the rules to take down Cardin?

And how was Ironwood oppressing Mantle, by the way?

[dappercat123]

The embargo, diverting supplies mantle desperately needed, recruiting the majority of skilled hunters to the military, the fucking level segregation that he didn’t use his two council seats to try and combat!? Hello!?

That being said the lunchroom scene still doesn’t men’s team RWBY look great, and I’m certain the context from the EC Meyers book was added retroactively to try and fix that scene

[rwbyuser24]

A question to the fandom: why couldn't Adam be an anti villain?

It's often said that the RWDE wanted Adam to be like Vergil or Magneto.

Personally, I don't know much about Vergil, so we'll focus on Magneto.

Why couldn't Adam be an anti-villain like him? I'm not talking about an anti-hero, but a morally ambiguous villain.

The fandom offers several arguments to this effect.

Adam was never intended to be a morally ambiguous character.

Well, just because he wasn't conceived that way doesn't mean he shouldn't have been. There are various arguments that support why Adam should have been an anti-villain. You know, why that was the best decision for the plot.

But I'll elaborate on that later.

2.-Adam was always established as irredeemable.

Well… not entirely. It's only in the fall of Beacon that he's shown as an irredeemable person. We can say that's when the character truly becomes a character, but he'd been around for a while.

Adam tried to blow up the SDC train. But it's not like there weren't morally ambiguous characters who would be willing to do that. I mean, it's pretty much implied that those were humans from the SDC. It's evil, but again, it's something the Yaegerists would do.

It's mentioned that Adam's world (his ideal vision) wouldn't be perfect for everyone.

"But of course, his idea of ​​a perfect future turned out to be not perfect for everyone."

Well, that means that vision would be good for SOME. (Although, of course, not for everyone).

Blake also talks about how Adam became radicalized:

"It wasn't in an instant, it was gradual - little choices that began to pile up. He told me not to worry. At first, they were accidents, then it was self-defense. Before long, even I began to think he was right."

Which, well, as I pointed out, simply means that Adam's actions were becoming increasingly radical.

And really, again, Adam is a villain. But it's not as if there aren't villains who commit radical acts and are still morally gray.

3.-Adam is the representation of the abuse victim turned perpetrator.

Yes… And he could have been that, for humanity. Why did he necessarily have to be an abuser with Blake? I mean, he could have been obsessed with hurting humanity.

The White Fang plot is about racism and terrorism. Why divert attention to other issues? Why use Adam to push those kinds of plots?

Adam is the leader of a terrorist faction of the White Fang. Doesn't it make sense for him to remain focused on that and for that to be the main focus of his character?

In fact, the most skillful decision would be to make Adam's obsession Weiss, not Blake.

4.- Adam's main character trait is being Blake's toxic ex-boyfriend. You can't simply remove that from his character.

Let's see. During the first two volumes, Adam is more conceived as an important leader of the White Fang. In the fall of Beacon, he's there to torture Blake, yes, but also to cause the academy's downfall. In volumes 4 and 5, he's more of a threat because he's a leader of the White Fang. It's only in volume 6 that the confrontation with Blake is entirely due to him being Blake's ex-boyfriend.

And well, that's a decision the writers made. They weren't obligated to do things that way.

5.-Removing Adam's abusive side diminishes Blake's character. It's empowering to see Blake defeat her abuser.

Okay, this is getting a bit personal, but: Was Adam's subplot as an abuser really handled well? I mean, we barely get any dialogue from Blake:

"He used to get in my head, make me feel small. But now I see he just wanted to pull me down to his size."

And the scene where Adam is manipulative and plays the victim is in Adam's character short.

We hardly saw Adam being abusive towards Blake. I'm not saying there weren't any scenes, but they were very few and far between.

NOTE: I'M REFERRING TO "DURING THEIR RELATIONSHIP."

Adam, as a toxic ex-boyfriend, continued to be abusive, but that's more like an ex-boyfriend seeking revenge. I'm talking about Adam as a boyfriend, that is, while they were in a relationship.

And anyway, if we remove Blake's subplot as a victim of abuse, we can focus on her as Adam's ideological rival.

Couldn't we just use another character as Blake's abuser? I mean, that way we avoid having to use Adam for that.

What's the problem with Adam being an abuser?

Besides the details I already mentioned, the issue is that it has problematic implications. After all, the Faunus subplot is based on the 1950s African American movement. Some people have stated that they see it as a "racist caricature" of the Black Panther Party.

Ultimately, it's not just Adam; it's his entire faction that takes control of the organization and follows him in his campaign of terror. And well, Adam is the face of the White Fang.

Conclusions

This is my own question: Why couldn't Adam be a morally gray villain? I ask the community to explain this to us.

Note: Again, I was talking about the details of their relationship when they were a couple. We have almost no details about that. We mostly see how things were after the breakup.

[rwbyuser24]

Why was wrong that Ironwood brought troops to Vale? (RWBY)

And, by the way, why was wrong that Ironwood wanted to assist militarily to other kingdoms?

Let's go step by step.

First. Vale.

"We are in a time of peace. Shows of power like this are just going to give the wrong impression."

"It's the Vytal Festival. A time to celebrate unity and peace. So I suggest that you don't scare people by transporting hundreds of soldiers halfway across the continent."

"And fear will bring the Grimm. A guardian is a symbol of comfort. But an army is a symbol of conflict. There's an energy in the air now, a question in the back of everyone's mind… 'If this is the size of our defenses, then what are we expecting to fight?'"

Okay, Ozpin's argument is this: It's wrong to bring troops to Vale because it creates panic. It makes people realize there's a huge threat.

First of all, I want to point out that Ozpin isn't always right. In fact, part of the theme in Volume 6 is that Ozpin has secrets and has made mistakes in the past.

Really… We were never shown in the series that Grimm was attracted to people's fear in this case. Grimm were attracted but by other events like Yang breaking Mercury's leg or the "death" of Penny.

In fact, the people aren't even worried about Atlas's military presence. We don't see them nervous, angry, or afraid.

When Ironwood gives a presentation of the new military technology, people celebrate. They don't just celebrate; they celebrate the new robots.

Regarding whether it's wrong to bring troops to an event to celebrate peace in times of peace… Well, there isn't really peace. There's a secret war against Salem. Troops were necessary to protect Vale. Recently, Qrow had mentioned that Salem had minions and Amber had been attacked. In addition to that, there were the attacks by the White Fang and Roman, plus Dust's thefts. The White Fang released Grimm in the capital.

Don't you think that would generate negative emotions? The White Fang hadn't been completely defeated yet.

Added to that is the ever-present Grimm. Why would it be wrong to bring troops to a peace event? There are many people gathered; it's an important event. Isn't it right to try to protect them?

Ironwood didn't come to militarily occupy Vale or declare war. He came so that Atlas forces could protect Vale, and that's what they tried to do.

We saw them fighting Cinder, Grimm, the White Fang, and hacked robots.

We could say that in the end, the robots were hacked. But it's not like Ironwood knew Watts was still alive.

Some say it's as if Ironwood occupied Vale.

First of all, neither Glynda nor Ozpin were surprised by the arrival of the ships. So we can assume that Ironwood asked the Vale council for permission to bring the army to the kingdom. I mean, if Ironwood had actually invaded Vale, don't you think there would have been protests in the streets or greater resistance?

And then, Ironwood asked the (democratically elected) Vale council if he could become head of security. And the council agreed. There you have it. It's not a military occupation, it's military assistance.

Some say Ironwood was in "shoot everything that moves" mode. But it's really "shoot at Grimm, the White Fang, and the enemy." It's not like the soldiers were murdering suspects without due process.

In fact, Atlas soldiers and robots surrounded Yang and didn't harm her when she (supposedly) attacked Mercury.

Look, I know many people don't like militaristic countries. But in this particular case, what's the problem?

In fact, I've also seen people complain about Ironwood's initial plan to provide military assistance to the other kingdoms to defend themselves against Grimm once he revealed himself over Salem.

Some say it's like colonization. But it's not like Ironwood is going to impose his will on those kingdoms. I mean, do we have any reason to believe it would be any different than when he provided military aid to Vale?

Anyway, uh… what's the problem? As always, I'd like to hear your thoughts and opinions.