u/ChemistFluid35

Some say he was actually just lying to Blake here. Because of "toxic masculinity" and all that, he was pretending he didn't care about the deaths of his White Fang brothers and sisters.

But as I pointed out, the simpler explanation is probably the correct one.

Adam has been portrayed as irredeemable, almost pure evil. So it really wouldn't surprise me if the comic writer simply didn't want you to empathize with Adam in this scene.

Yes, I'm sorry. I know I should publish the post about Adam. But let's just say that every time I try to write it, I remember another argument from the fandom, and so on in an endless cycle.

Anyway, in this post, I want you to tell me if the series (through the writers) really demonized Sienna Khan.
Or if that demonization was exclusive to Adam and his faction.

Something curious is that Ghira (a character we're supposed to see as a good guy) is presented as respecting Sienna.

"So I stepped down, and Sienna Khan was appointed as my successor. It's true that I do not fully condone many of her methods. What I do condone is what Sienna fights for: the idea that the Faunus and humans are, and should be, equal. Adam Taurus does not seem to have that goal in mind."

In fact, in the scene where Adam kills her. Sienna is portrayed as a rational person and, to a certain extent, moderate regarding violence.

And even when Blake talks about Sienna Khan's strategies (in the Black and White episode), she mentions that it worked. That her use of violence actually yielded results.

It's important to consider that while Blake left the White Fang, that was because of Adam's actions, not Sienna Khan's.

So, did the series present Sienna as someone evil? Or just someone misguided?

Talking to u/Conquerorofspace, he mentioned this to me. Okay, Ironwood needs to have Mantle on his side and all that. His plan is to unite the world against Salem after all.

Besides, in the original series, the problem wasn't just Robyn stealing resources, but also the suppliers not selling their supplies.

Ironwood can't just order people to do what he needs. That will only generate negative emotions.

So, how does he solve Mantle's problems?

-By repairing the wall, perhaps? By upgrading Mantle's security network to prevent hackers from infiltrating it?

-By revealing Salem's existence, while keeping Amity Tower's identity a secret?

-By trying to convince people that everything he does is for their safety?

-Perhaps an alliance with the Happy Huntresses? You know, just tell them what Mantle needs to know for now, while hiding dangerous truths (like Amity Tower).

-Use Robyn's semblance to confirm to people that he's not responsible for the murders in Mantle? While remaining silent on other matters, obviously.

-End the embargo but not the border closures? That way, economic problems are alleviated while Salem remains secure.
If you're wondering how one can be eliminated if the other remains, easy: increase surveillance on ships entering and leaving the kingdom. Check that only essential goods are being transported. Like Dust, Atlas needs Dust.
Besides, without the embargo, many people would still have their jobs.

-Militarize the borders to ensure Salem doesn't enter while allowing the free movement of goods?

-What else?

-Improve Mantle's defense strategies?

Anyway, I feel like maybe there are things that could be done. But I'm not sure. How could Ironwood have Mantle's help on his side? How useful would it be?

Remember that Mantle is suffering without knowing why. That's why Mantle's people are angry.

Sometimes people are completely disrespectful in discussions.

They call each other "bigot" just because they like certain characters or because they like the show.
People also say, "The discussion about something is asinine," just because others disagree with them.
Or, "Why is this even a discussion?" just because others disagree with them.

People use Monty's name to attack or defend the show. "This is what Monty wanted." "This isn't what Monty wanted."

Personally, I don't care. Regardless of whether Monty wanted something in the show or not, I'm going to continue criticizing or defending the series because there are things I like and dislike about it.

People insult each other, and that's intolerable.
I know we're on the internet, and that's why people feel free to attack others. I mean, that way there won't be any consequences.
But please, this should be a space where we can all be happy together and discuss things in a healthy and polite way.

Anyway, this isn't a rant or anything, I just wanted to make a request for people to be more respectful.

A post about Adam. Ironically, I don't think I've written many about him.

In any case, I want to point out something that causes some confusion. And I want to clarify it.
Some people say, "Why are people surprised that Adam is a toxic ex-boyfriend? From the beginning, we see that he's a bad person."

And yes. We know he's a bad person from the Black trailer, where he wants to kill the train passengers.
But, being a terrorist (which is what is established there) is one thing, and being a toxic ex-boyfriend is another.
One doesn't mean the other. Both are bad, both are evil. But they are different kinds of evil. I'm not saying one is worse than the other, I'm simply saying they aren't the same.

Even in the mentions made of Adam, nothing really revealed that he was a toxic ex-boyfriend. I mean, Blake (when they were in Mountain Glen) talks about Adam and says that he's a monster. She says that he was someone with a worldview that wasn't perfect for everyone.
She also (during the Vytal festival) talks about how Adam became more radical and violent.

But Blake talks about Adam's radicalism. At no point does she refer to him as a toxic boyfriend.

Another thing, some people say, "Why do people say that Adam's character was ruined when from the beginning he's presented as a bad person?"

Well, it's simple. People complain because what they wanted from Adam was a villain, yes, but one with nuances.

I can think of several extremist villains with gray morals who would be willing to destroy the train with passengers on board. (Because SDC is a company that enslaves people).

Blake says that Adam's vision wouldn't be perfect for everyone, implying that it would be good for some.

And she also mentions that Adam becomes more radical, which could simply indicate that he is now an extremist.

What people didn't want was an Adam who was a toxic ex-boyfriend.

Look, I'll be frank. I don't think Adam's character was ruined or anything like that. Adam barely had a character until the fall of Beacon (where it's revealed that Adam is a toxic ex-boyfriend and so on).

But I think the arguments the fandom is using aren't correct.

And on the contrary, they're misinterpreting the arguments of the show's detractors.

I hope no one takes this as a rant; it's more of an observation.

I've seen many people criticizing Robyn. They say she's a t3rr0r1st, that she commits illegal acts, and so on.

But I've also seen people who sympathize with Sienna Khan and consider what she does to be right.

So, why is this? Why is it that while Sienna Khan is justified in breaking the law and rebelling, Robyn Hill isn't?

Now, I know what you'll say. They're different situations. The Faunus are enslaved by the SDC. Mantle, while oppressed, is in a different category than the Faunus. Besides, it's Atlas companies that oppress Mantle, not Ironwood. Ironwood harms Mantle as collateral damage. And it's precisely Ironwood against whom Robyn rebels.

Okay. But the point is that Mantle still doesn't have enough protection. We've seen Grimm continuing to enter the city.

What is Robyn supposed to do? Stand idly by? Well, obviously she's preparing for the elections, so it would be wrong for her to steal military equipment when she could try to change things through politics.

Even so, when Robyn rebels against Ironwood after election night... that happens after there's been a massacre of citizens in Mantle. And Robyn believed that massacre was caused by Penny, Ironwood's robot.

What can someone do in that situation? The legal route is exhausted; for Robyn, Ironwood has already become a dictator capable of killing the opposition. So, break the law?

Okay, I get it. I understand that there are people who believe that even if your government abandons you and decides to eliminate the opposition, you should take the pacifist path. Be more moderate. Like Ghira Belladonna.

But it's curious. Those who support Robyn are accused of being authoritarian because they support someone who rebels after losing the election.

But why isn't the White Fang considered authoritarian? I mean, Sienna rebels against candidates she doesn't like being in power.

The White Fang is considered a liberation force against slavery.
But aren't the Happy Huntresses a liberation force against a government that commits a massacre?

Again, I can understand why some people support Sienna and dislike Robyn.

But in this case, it's strange to condemn one and justify the other.

In fact, Robyn herself wanted to steal resources to distribute them among the people of Mantle and force Ironwood to repair the wall.

The characters never say that Robyn wants to repair the wall herself. What she did was convince the suppliers not to sell materials to Ironwood until he repairs the wall.

In fact, at no point is it stated that Robyn is acting against the army out of spite towards Ironwood, or because Jacques won the election.

She was acting this way because she believed it was the only option now that Ironwood had (SUPPOSEDLY) ordered the killing of her followers.

In the case of the White Fang, we know they have done good things for the faunus, so we can assume their intentions are good.

But, in the case of the Happy Huntresses, we know they stayed in Mantle to protect the people. The characters themselves mention this. And Robyn running in the election, doesn't that count as a way of helping the people? In fact, isn't redistributing military resources and forcing Ironwood to repair the wall considered something that helps Mantle?

By the way, Robyn herself has shown herself to be an egalitarian who also fights for the faunus.

But that's my question. Why is one justified and the other not?

I personally think that we should judge their actions beyond if these are legal or not. We should judge them based on what these actions are on themselves.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, it's simple.

There are times when I decide to criticize RWDE, let's say. Then someone tells me that "it's a two-way street." And yes, I understand that.
But hey, today I woke up wanting to criticize RWDE. If I don't criticize FNDM, it's also because I want to criticize FNDM another day, or I simply didn't feel like it.

Or when, for example, I've made posts criticizing Ironwood and some people have called me a hypocrite because those comments could also be directed at Ruby and her friends.

I don't know, just because I criticize Ironwood doesn't mean I'm unaware that Team RWBY has also made mistakes.

If I didn't criticize Team RWBY, it's because the post was about Ironwood, not about the girls.

Tomorrow, if you want, I can make a post about Team RWBY. But right now, I want to talk about other things.

Anyway, that's it. It's very tiring.

And yes, I'm posting this here because it's happened to me here too. With all due respect, sometimes people act like jerks.

Hey, just because you have an opinion and I write something about it, doesn't mean I want to debate you. Sometimes I just want to have a normal conversation.

Besides, my replies don't give you the right to use passive-aggressive comments against me.

People often forget that this is a subreddit about an animated internet series. Things shouldn't be taken so seriously or so personally.

Okay, I don't know how many more times I'll have to say this, but these arguments ARE NOT MINE. It's a compilation of arguments from the fandom.

Why am I making these posts? For fun. And because I don't want this subreddit to become an echo chamber.

Leaving that aside, let's begin:

1. Initially, in "Field Trip," Ironwood wanted to send soldiers to Mountain Glen, even though that wouldn't be the most competent decision. After all, these soldiers could be detected, and the White Fang troops could escape.

"She's right. As much as I too would love to end this situation once and for all, we must remember that this may go beyond Vale. Beyond Beacon. And if this truly is part of some master plan for which we don't know the final move, we mustn't be so bold. Nor can we risk the spread of panic."

"It is not! You're a general, James. So tell me, when you prepare to go to war, which do you send in first? The flag bearers, or the scouts?"

Even Ozpin mentions it. Panic attracts Grimm; if troops are deployed without warning, people will be frightened, and that will attract Grimm, making it harder to protect them.

Note: In the end, Ironwood decides to follow Ozpin's advice, albeit with reservations. Can we still criticize James for proposing this nonsense to begin with? I don't know, what do you think of Ironwood's initial plan?

2. Neo's infiltration of the Atlesian ship.

While Ironwood can't be blamed for his technology being hacked, can he be criticized for not preventing Neo from infiltrating the ship where Roman was being held? I mean, incompetence, after all. Not putting a special operative there to guard someone as dangerous as Roman. You know, putting Winter there.

3. Withdrawing troops from Vale immediately after the academy fell.

Well, with everything destroyed, shouldn't troops have remained in the kingdom to try and protect the city while people evacuated?

4. Shifting the blame.

"If Oz had just listened to me from the start..."

Really, what if Ozpin had listened from the beginning? What would have changed? If they had attacked Mountain Glenn, wouldn't Beacon have fallen? If they had increased their troops in Beacon during the Vytal Festival, wouldn't Beacon have fallen?

I already mentioned the problems with the plan to attack Mountain Glenn with all their forces. And if they had increased forces in Vale during the Vytal Festival, they would have been hacked too. Isn't shifting the blame incompetence?

"It's obvious that no kingdom intends to declare war on Atlas. We had no involvement in the incident at Haven; we have proof our drones weren't acting on orders at Beacon. At this point, closing Atlas's borders is only serving to damage our relations with the rest of the world."

Closing the borders and imposing an embargo were insufficient to prevent a hacker and an assassin from infiltrating Mantle. Isolating Atlas only generated unrest among the population, creating enemies for Ironwood and fostering discontent. Negative emotions attract Grimm.

And damaging international relations makes it difficult to unite the world with Amity Tower.

6. Withdrawing troops from Remnant.

While Ironwood stated that he withdrew forces from Remnant to protect Atlas, the Grimm attacks continued, rendering it futile. Why not also protect the rest of the world and thus prevent attacks from Salem?

7. Not informing Mistral of the potential attack against the kingdom.

"Winter is one of my best. If she's telling me there's a threat in Mistral, then I'm not going to take that news lightly. She's been there for weeks, people are mobilizing, there have been sudden spikes in weapons and Dust trades. Someone is about to make a play, and I don't trust Leo to stop them."

While Atlas obviously isn't going to try to stop Salem in Mistral, Ironwood could have given the council the information he had.

NOTE: Ironwood isn't saying he distrusts Lionheart's loyalty, but rather his ability to stop Salem's minions. So he has no reason not to give important information to Leonardo and the council.

8. Not improving Mantle's security.

Well, he didn't repair the wall and he didn't improve Mantle's security network.

Ironwood doesn't know that Watts is alive. But he does know that there was a hacker who hacked the military's security network in Beacon. Why not improve Mantle's security network? Mantle is Atlas's backyard.

"Well, if we're dealing with the same enemy from Beacon, hacking into Mantle's system would be easy. Fortunately, the rest of Atlas is running on an upgraded network."

9. Poor military tactics during volume 8.

10. That's all.

Well, if I had to add anything, I'd say that one of these things happening is bad writing. But several happening already implies a certain consistency. It's not just the writers' incompetence. It's that they themselves wanted to portray James as incompetent.

After all these examples, a consistency is created.
Some might say it's like a doctor who, despite all their efforts, can't save a life. But, really, what does it mean to be competent?
If you achieve something, you're competent. If you fail, you're incompetent. Effort doesn't matter. It's a matter of results.

Note: As always, I remind you that none of these arguments reflect my opinion. I feel like I'm forgetting something. I don't take responsibility for what you may think after reading all of this.

I'm not mentioning things like:

-Not realizing there were infiltrators in Beacon, because not even Ozpin knew that.

-I'm not including the failure to evacuate Mantle to Atlas or the plan to push Atlas into the atmosphere because those are broader topics that can't be covered in a single post.

Love and peace. If all goes well, I'll publish another post like this about Adam tomorrow. Not about whether he's competent or not, but about other aspects.