I really dont know why they want Scott to be a murderer so badly considering like... wouldnt that make them like him more? If he was a killer? Just based on who their faves are.
To understand them, you have to understand one crucial fact: they’re not using deductive reasoning. This is when an observer looks at what happened on the screen, recognizes the context, and draws from that evidence a general conclusion. When you look at the show, you see a sixteen-year-old assault victim turned into a creature of the night against his will, given new aggressive urges and heavy responsibilities he never asked for, and placed in a world where adults constantly try to use him for their own ends. When we watch him not only refuse to succumb to their manipulations and expectations but instead rise above them, we say, looking at the evidence, “Well that’s the hero protagonist of the show!”
They’re using bastardized inductive reasoning. They have started with a specific premise -- Scott McCall should not have been the hero protagonist of the show -- and then find or manufacture affirmation of that conclusion. They’re only interested in what serves their initial position, and if the evidence doesn’t exist, they’ll make it up.
That’s why they can argue in one breath that Scott was a terrible, horrible person for wanting to kill Peter after Derek told him that killing the alpha was the only way to be cured, but in the next breath scold him for refusing to execute Gerard, a man confined to a wheelchair in a dingy facility and coughing up black gunk for at least 18 months. That’s why they can not only take Scott hesitating to leave Allison alone in Restraint as a sign of utter depravity because he should immediately have jumped to Erica’s assistance, no matter how many times she had attacked Scott and his friends on Derek’s orders, but also take him to task for his incredibly dangerous naivete in not casting Theo out on Stiles’s gut feeling when, as Scott so clearly put it, “no one’s done anything wrong.” It’s why they can argue that Scott was fucking stupid for letting Deucalion go free (when it was both Derek and Scott and there was no indication that they could have beaten Deucalion anyway) but at the same time state that he was a cruel tyrant for putting Peter in Eichen House (when there was no indication that Scott was the one to make that decision and how did a teenage boy get an adult man committed to a mental healthy facility anyway?).
The context of these actions really doesn’t matter to them, especially if that context obstructs their desired conclusion, so they’ll discard it if necessary. The fact that they can hold entirely contradictory positions doesn’t matter to them either, especially when they can use them in vicious anonymous rants, as long as their desired end is achieved.
Let’s take Scott’s imaginary “No Killing” rule, which was never a rule Scott held. They use this fandom creation to make him a hypocrite when he wasn’t, and to make him ineffective when he wasn’t.
Scott never had a “no killing” rule. He refused to allow Derek to kill Lydia or Jackson in Season 2 because neither of them had consented or planned to become a monstrous killer lizard and whichever one of them was the kanima was under the control of a Master as well. He refused to let Noshiko, Derek, Chris, or even himself kill Stiles in Season 3, because Stiles was possessed unwillingly by a nogitsune. He objected to the death of Donovan Donati because he had learned -- along with anyone who had actually watched the show -- that when victims had been transformed by the Dread Doctors into chimera they would often go on homicidal rampages. Scott didn’t want to kill victims -- he said as much often -- and it was out of empathy for other people who were placed in the same position that he had been. He also didn’t want to kill people who had been defeated, when they weren’t in any immediate position to hurt others.
Yet, when it came to killing villains and self-determined monsters who intended to hurt others? Scott didn’t have a problem with it. He threatened both Gerard and Jennifer Blake with death if they took actions that endangered other people. When going to confront Kate Argent and her berserkers in Orphaned (4x06) and Chris Argent pulled out an assault rifle, he literally said “I’m okay with that.” He didn’t complain about Satomi, Chris, Braeden, or Derek using lethal weapons against human beings in the battle against the rogue hunters. In that fight, too, he used his claws and full strength, and the climax of that fight was when he had to pull himself back from killing a downed opponent. In the end, he didn’t hesitate to hurl the Pike through the disembodied La Bete, did he?
There was never a “no killing” rule. There was no killing victims or executing beaten opponents rule. Isn’t that what we want in a leader? In a hero? He was placed in a position when it would have been easy to kill helpless people in order to make himself and those he loved safe, when it would have been easy to bring deadly judgment on those who hurt him and tried to enslave him, but he refrained. Isn’t that what we want in a leader? In a hero?
It is obviously my thing that I point out that their initial premise is racist. The reason they want to prove their conclusion is that they wanted a white hero. You know how I know this? Because other characters held the same beliefs as Scott and no one hates them. It’s Lydia who said “we’re not executioners.” Stiles and his father hated Peter Hale for what he did. Sheriff Stilinski stressed out over the deaths of chimeras just as much as Scott did. Sheriff Stilinski believed in and trusted Theo, even giving him a big old hug, even after Stiles warned the Sheriff about him, too. It’s only the Latino who is denigrated for having morals. Derek complained to Peter that “we’ve found another way.” But none of them are hated for the contradictions they were put in. I can only conclude that there’s another reason that they didn’t want Scott as hero.
