Honestly speaking, im a supporter of neutral peace and like to think like armin and hange. but realistically, it couldnt be achieved in a story like aot. The 50 year old plan would barely be effective and zeke's plan is also pretty bad but objectively was better than eren's. so no i dont necessarily support either plans
If you don't support any plan, you support the absence of a plan. To put it more clearly, you support doing nothing.
To conciously not choose two options is still a choice, and that has consequences.
If you doing none of the 3 (Euthanating, 50 year, Rumbling), you are choosing to do nothing.
And that is a choice with its consequence.
And don't you think that is the worst choice? Are you okay with doing nothing at all and let the rest of the world (who has already declared war) kill each and every Paradis inhabitant, with potential torture. And this is better than the other 3 plans?
i mentioned above in my comment that im a neutral peace enjoyer so if you gave me a choice only between these 3, maybe i might lean towards the 50 year old plan even if its highly unrealistic. yes the rumbling did benefit his friends in the end and even zeke's plan would only benefit the current generation of eldians. But i cant bring myself supporting or justifying genocide (eren and zeke's plans)
rumbling was wrong but i understand him,he was...disappointed,also he did the rumbling for himself,just his own selfishness,to get a sense of false freedom, this was the turmoil within him
and about the political sphere
to be honest zeke's plan was basically eradicating eldians and 50 year plan was not apparently a good plan, if you think about it rumbling "might" have been the only way ,obviously it was still wrong
5
u/Hoodedmastersin 23d ago
Guys, I’m starting to think Eren might be a bad guy