Are loser protagonists really relatable?

[aattss]

People aren't losers. They just wish that they were.

 

[BlackKnightX]

People aren't losers. They just wish that they were.

Why?

 

[TheEldritchGod]

Your grasp of percentages and economy are challenging...

I see it this way. If you want to redistribute wealth, you usually just end up tanking the economy.

But if you maximize mobility, then everyone gets a seat at the table eventually. Yes, you are going to wind up with a greater number of losers, but will they STAY losers?

I'll take greater mobility with everyone having a shot at the brass ring, then dragging everyone down to the same level.


Wait... do you thing that the top 1% is only 1% of the population?

In a snapshot, yes, but I'm quoting stats for just America. Nobody is born with money. You are property as a child. You don't count until you are 18.

My figures are on what percentage of the population will reach the 1% for at least 1 year in their life time.

12% achieve 1% in their lifetime.
54% achieve 20% in their life time.

You are less likely to be rich in any other country than America

 

[Cortavar]

I see it this way. If you want to redistribute wealth, you usually just end up tanking the economy.

But if you maximize mobility, then everyone gets a seat at the table eventually. Yes, you are going to wind up with a greater number of losers, but will they STAY losers?

I'll take greater mobility with everyone having a shot at the brass ring, then dragging everyone down to the same level.


Wait... do you thing that the top 1% is only 1% of the population?

In a snapshot, yes, but I'm quoting stats for just America. Nobody is born with money. You are property as a child. You don't count until you are 18.

My figures are on what percentage of the population will reach the 1% for at least 1 year in their life time.

12% achieve 1% in their lifetime.
54% achieve 20% in their life time.

You are less likely to be rich in any other country than America

The self-made man is a myth, an illusion designed to keep the working class docile in the hope of achieving ultimate wealth.

Your vision of childhood and teenage years is at the same time really concerning (property, seriously?) and misses the whole point of the inequality of the American system.

The opportunities that present themselves to children vastly differ depending on how and by whom they were raised in the current system. Inherited wealth is not just money, it's also knowledge, relationships, time spent educating, learning opportunities. How many of those who reach the 1% or 20% at one time are children of the upper class? My guess would be a lot.

That's why you need a nationwide system to correct inequalities, especially for children. If you don't, you ensure that the wealthiest keep in place, even if they have average or below average talent, and only the very best and lucky of the poorest succeed.

You miss so many talents, so many future wealth for everyone if you don't consider correcting destiny a viable policy.

I'm not advocating for Communism, with everyone strictly receiving the same thing all along their lives, it's stupid, demotivating and it just doesn't work. I'm saying the general field should be leveled, by giving more to those who have less, so that everyone can have as close to the same opportunities as can be.

Inequality of results? Yup, that's sound, let's reward talent and hard work! Inequality of means? You have an issue if it isn't at least partially addressed, because you lose talent and wealth in the long run.

 

[AliceShiki]

Come on, everyone, no politics on the forums. It's on the forum rules.

Drop it. If you wanna discuss here, stay on the thread's topic. Loser protagonists is the topic, not politics.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

This is economics not politics.
That is, fictional economics and not real-world politics.
@Cortavar

Also, I don’t think the system matters as much as the people running it. A loser protagonist would not be happy in fictional communism however because he couldn’t rise.

Fictional Capitalism fails when companies get too big and lobby government officials to do what they want.

So I don’t think a loser protagonist will do well in either system.

 

[Cortavar]

Come on, everyone, no politics on the forums. It's on the forum rules.

Drop it. If you wanna discuss here, stay on the thread's topic. Loser protagonists is the topic, not politics.

Oops, didn't read the rules!

@Anon2023 if you wish, we can move it to pm!

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Come on, everyone, no politics on the forums. It's on the forum rules.

Drop it. If you wanna discuss here, stay on the thread's topic. Loser protagonists is the topic, not politics.

Based Alice.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Oops, didn't read the rules!

@Anon2023 if you wish, we can move it to pm!

Sure

 

[greyblob]

it is satisfying to read about zero to hero. simple as

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Come on, everyone, no politics on the forums. It's on the forum rules.

Drop it. If you wanna discuss here, stay on the thread's topic. Loser protagonists is the topic, not politics.

I feel like Alice is the loser protagonist of the forum who got so angry she started stabbing people.

 

[AliceShiki]

This is economics not politics.

To clarify, "politics" is used kinda broadly as far as forum rules go.

It's essentially a ban on particularly volatile topics that are related to real issues of the world and that can easily get people heated up.

Like, discussions on whether or not it's okay to discriminate against a given group of real people (as in, discussing this within the context of writing fictional characters is fine) would be banned due to "politics" even if this isn't political.

Stuff discussing economical systems and whatnot is also banned under the same rule.

Basically, just avoid those more volatile topics involving stuff that actually affects people lives.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

To clarify, "politics" is used kinda broadly as far as forum rules go.

It's essentially a ban on particularly volatile topics that are related to real issues of the world and that can easily get people heated up.

Like, discussions on whether or not it's okay to discriminate against a given group of real people (as in, discussing this within the context of writing fictional characters is fine) would be banned due to "politics" even if this isn't political.

Stuff discussing economical systems and whatnot is also banned under the same rule.

Basically, just avoid those more volatile topics involving stuff that actually affects people lives.

Uh, we were talking about fictional communism…

 

[AliceShiki]

Uh, we were talking about fictional communism…

Okay, I'm gonna stop replying after this since the topic was already hijacked enough, but let me clarify this.

You were talking not about the usage of communism in novel writing, you were talking about it on a whole.

That's not allowed. It's fine to discuss how to use it on a novel, not about the concept itself.

Also, even if you were talking about it on novel writing, this was still hijacking the thread.

Stay on thread topic. Make a separate thread if you wanna discuss something else.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Uh, we were talking about fictional communism…

Bruh.

 

[Cortavar]

Uh, we were talking about fictional communism…

Yeah yeah totally fictional communism! Automated Space Communism for the win! ?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Okay, I'm gonna stop replying after this since the topic was already hijacked enough, but let me clarify this.

there, I fixed it so I never hijacked the thread.
Now you don’t have to stab me.

 

[BearlyAlive]

"Are loser MCs relatable?" Depends on how you define "relatable".
If you can self-insert into those chances are you are or were the same.
If you can empathize or feel with them chances are you're able to feel basic human emotion.
If you call them trash and want them to murder-hobo everyone else then you're either a reader of Chinese webfiction or from RR.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

The self-made man is a myth, an illusion designed to keep the working class docile in the hope of achieving ultimate wealth.

So I wasn't living out my car that was missing a bumper that fell off as a teen? So I was HANDED 97k last year for no reason?
Dude, it's clear you are redefining words.

Your vision of childhood and teenage years is at the same time really concerning (property, seriously?) and misses the whole point of the inequality of the American system.

what are you talking about? YOU DON'T OWN ANYTHING AS A MINOR. You have a great deal of immunity as well, but you CANNOT LEGALLY SIGN A CONTRACT. I had a friend, 16, who bought a car on credit. Dad found out, got the car lone NULLIFIED and the kid kept the car.

YOU do not know the law in America. Anything your child has, you own. For purposes of WEALTH, children don't have any, legally, as far as the US government is concerned.

The opportunities that present themselves to children vastly differ depending on how and by whom they were raised in the current system. Inherited wealth is not just money, it's also knowledge, relationships, time spent educating, learning opportunities. How many of those who reach the 1% or 20% at one time are children of the upper class? My guess would be a lot.

Nope. most "rich families" fall apart in 3 generations. The belief in "old money" is a myth.

That's why you need a nationwide system to correct inequalities, especially for children. If you don't, you ensure that the wealthiest keep in place, even if they have average or below average talent, and only the very best and lucky of the poorest succeed.

No. Citation needed. Give me an example this has ever worked on a scale over 100,000 people.

You miss so many talents, so many future wealth for everyone if you don't consider correcting destiny a viable policy.

You know better than destany?

I'm not advocating for Communism,

You are advocating for worse.

with everyone strictly receiving the same thing all along their lives, it's stupid, demotivating and it just doesn't work. I'm saying the general field should be leveled, by giving more to those who have less, so that everyone can have as close to the same opportunities as can be.

The starting line should be leveled. There should be more than one starting line. You should never level the FIELD.

Inequality of results? Yup, that's sound, let's reward talent and hard work! Inequality of means? You have an issue if it isn't at least partially addressed, because you lose talent and wealth in the long run.

Show me examples of when it worked for a system of government 1000x larger than the Dunbar empathy limit.

 

[Cortavar]

So I wasn't living out my car that was missing a bumper that fell off as a teen? So I was HANDED 97k last year for no reason?
Dude, it's clear you are redefining words.



what are you talking about? YOU DON'T OWN ANYTHING AS A MINOR. You have a great deal of immunity as well, but you CANNOT LEGALLY SIGN A CONTRACT. I had a friend, 16, who bought a car on credit. Dad found out, got the car lone NULLIFIED and the kid kept the car.

YOU do not know the law in America. Anything your child has, you own. For purposes of WEALTH, children don't have any, legally, as far as the US government is concerned.

Nope. most "rich families" fall apart in 3 generations. The belief in "old money" is a myth.


No. Citation needed. Give me an example this has ever worked on a scale over 100,000 people.


You know better than destany?


You are advocating for worse.


The starting line should be leveled. There should be more than one starting line. You should never level the FIELD.


Show me examples of when it worked for a system of government 1000x larger than the Dunbar empathy limit.

OK, let's move to pm.

Not saying that I agree with whatever you said, but I've been warned not to talk about politics on the forum.

So, pm or nothing.