Roast The Green

[Anonymous No.22437678]

A thread dedicated to critiquing and roasting the shit out of John green and his degenerate ya-fag fans

[Anonymous No.22437693]

>>22437678
Who the fuck is that, his body double?

[Anonymous No.22437695]

>rape a terminally ill high schooler
>write a book about it

[Anonymous No.22437697]

>>22437678
He got bullied by tumblr they/thems into leaving the site.

[Anonymous No.22437703]

>>22437678
If I like some of their YouTube videos does that make me a fag?

[Anonymous No.22437705]

>>22437697
Based tumblr trannies

[Anonymous No.22437706]

>>22437703
Yes. My condolences friend.

[Anonymous No.22437817]

>>22437693
an ai generated pic

[Anonymous No.22437979]

>umm actually, [greatest military general ever] was bad, becoz he was... le sexist...

[Anonymous No.22437984]

>>22437706
What makes him so bad?

[Anonymous No.22438325]

>>22437697
Why? What happened?

[Anonymous No.22438332]

>>22437678
What was the AI prompt?
"John Green smiling deviously as the roofies he spiked your drink with begins to take effect"?

[Anonymous No.22438434]

>>22437678
I have never read any of his books but I saw one of his videos and I don't like the way he talks. He has annoying voice and mannerisms.
I know one person who likes John Green's books and he is a left wing reddit faggot.

[Anonymous No.22438443]

>>22437678
Is that the dude I saw doing YouTube history videos like ten years ago?

[Anonymous No.22438512]

>>22437678
chatLGBT:
John Green, where do I even start? Your books are about as deep and profound as a kiddie pool. It's like you took a course in young adult literature and decided to write the same cliché story over and over again. Your characters are more one-dimensional than stick figures, and the plot twists are about as unexpected as a sunrise.

But let's not forget your pretentious writing style. It's like you swallowed a thesaurus and regurgitated it onto the pages of your books. We get it, you think you're so clever and profound. Newsflash, John, using big words doesn't make you a good writer. It just makes you look like you're desperately trying to compensate for your lack of originality.

And can we talk about your obsession with teenage angst? Every character you write seems to be going through an existential crisis, as if being a teenager is the pinnacle of emotional turmoil. Guess what, John? There's more to life than moping around and contemplating the meaning of your existence. Maybe try writing about some real-life struggles that actually matter.

But my favorite thing about you, John Green, is the way you've managed to build a whole career off of teenage girls gushing over your mediocre writing. It's like you found the formula for pandering to emotionally unstable teenagers, and you milked it for all it's worth. Congratulations on exploiting a vulnerable demographic for profit.

So, in conclusion, John Green, you're the epitome of overrated. Your work is bland, your prose is pretentious, and your success is undeserved. Maybe it's time to step off your pedestal and give someone else a chance to shine.

[Anonymous No.22438576]

>>22437678
What does /lit/ think of Mr. Green's latest thesis?

[Anonymous No.22438613]

>>22438325
He is super weird about women (who cares desu) but you also have the infamous cock post. There was a time where you could edit posts on tumblr and they edited a few of his to make it seem like he was some horrendously horny cocklover. Super funny desu you should look it up.

[Anonymous No.22438840]

>>22438576
S: Good day, John Green.
G: Good day to you too, Socrates.
S: Tell me, do you think it matters how many people someone has slept with?
G: No, I do not.
S: Why do you say that?
G: Imagine if I started eating Cheerios for breakfast. Would Cheerios say to me, 'I'm the 48th cereal you've tried eating?! I don't feel special!'?
S: But cereal cannot speak, so the question is nonsensical.
G: But if they could speak, would they say that?
S: It is useless to draw conclusions from a vacuous hypothetical. But, for the sake of the dialectic, let's assume they would not.
G: And can I go into the past and un-eat all those cereals?
S: No, you cannot.
G: Then it follows that I can genuinely enjoy its whole-grain crunch.
S: I do not see how it follows, but I do agree that one may enjoy Cheerios despite having eaten other cereal before.
G: Therefore, it does not matter how many people someone has slept with.
S: This is an interesting argument, but I do not believe it to be valid.
G: Why do you say that?
S: Can you be eating cereal forever, all the time?
G: What do you mean?
S: I mean, when you eat cereal, you become full, and thus have no more desire to eat cereal. Furthermore, when you eat cereal, you have less and less cereal to eat, until you run out of cereal, and thus have no more ability to eat cereal.
G: Then no, you cannot be eating cereal forever.
S: And at best, you can only eat cereal for 30 minutes.
G: Yes. But what has this to do with how many people someone has slept with?
S: Are you familiar with the marriage vows, 'Till death do us part'?
G: Yes, I am familiar.
S: Then is the goal of marriage to end in divorce, or until one of the partners dies?
G: I should say until one of the partners dies.
S: Then is it better for a marriage to last longer, or to last shorter?
G: It is better to last longer.
S: And, if one is married at age 30, and dies at age 80, then a marriage lasts 50 years.
G: That is correct.
S: And could a marriage last longer than 50 years?
G: It is possible.
S: And because it is better for a marriage to last longer, a marriage ought to last longer than 50 years?
G: Correct.
S: And, ideally, a marriage ought to last forever?
G: Yes.
S: Then, if a cereal can only be eaten for at most 30 minutes, while marriage ought to last for at least 50 years, then it follows that one ought to be married to another one million times longer than one can eat cereal.
G: That is true.
S: The inherent brevity of eating cereal is why one can enjoy one kind of cereal today and another kind tomorrow. But a marriage, where one cannot sleep with one person today and another tomorrow, ought to last forever. Therefore, eating different cereal cannot be compared with sleeping with different people.
G: I see now that my analogy is false. But that does not prove that it matters how many people someone has slept with.
S: Would you give me leave to prove it?
G: By all means.

[Anonymous No.22438842]

>>22438576
but it's from the cheerios' pov?

jg: eat-fucks
Cheerios: complains he eat-fucked too many cereals
jg: i'm going to eat-fuck you anyway

how is this le ebin win for women?

[Anonymous No.22438844]

>>22438840
S: Are you married?
G: Yes.
S: Were you the first person your wife has slept with?
G: No, I was the 48th.
S: How would you feel if you found out your wife had slept with 47 other people yesterday?
G: I would feel angry, disgusted and betrayed.
S: And this is because she would have committed adultery, or adulterated, correct?
G: Yes.
S: To be clear, she would have adulterated if she had slept with 47 other people while she was married to you.
G: Correct.
S: But, if she had slept with 47 other people while she was not married to you, she would not have adulterated, but would have fornicated.
G: True.
S: Now, your wife has fornicated with 47 other people, correct?
G: Yes.
S: Now I'm confused, because you would be hurt if your wife had adulterated with 47 other people, yet you seem to not be hurt that your wife has fornicated with 47 other people. Then there must be some difference between adultery and fornication that would make you feel angry, disgusted and betrayed in the former but not in the latter.
G: Correct.
S: Is the difference in the body? Would adultery have a larger chance of diseases and unwanted pregnancies, compared with fornication?
G: No, I do not think so.
S: Is the difference in the mind? Does adulterating look or sound or feel different from fornicating? Is the memory of the first more permanent than that of the other?
G: No, I do not believe so.
S: Then what is the difference between her having fornicated with 47 other people and her having adulterated with 47 other people?
G: The difference is that in the former she was not married, while in the latter, she was.
S: And so the only difference is the state of being married? In all other respects, fornication and adultery are the same?
G: Yes.
S: So her having adulterated has two parts, the action of having slept with someone who is not you, and the state of being married.
G: I agree.
S: Then why did you marry her? Then she could never have adulterated!
G: But I wanted to marry her.
S: You do not want her to have adulterated, do you?
G: I do not.
S: So you do not want adultery, yet you want the second part of adultery, the state of being married. Then it is the first part of adultery which you do not want.
G: Yes.
S: Then it is not the state of being married which makes you feel angry, disgusted and betrayed, but her having slept with other people.
G: I see.
S: But her having slept with other people is the same in adultery as in fornication, since they are the same in every respect save marriage. Then her having fornicated should also make you feel angry, disgusted and betrayed.
G: That is correct.
S: Therefore, it matters how many people someone has slept with. Simply put, adultery and fornication are wrong for the same reasons, and fidelity and virginity are good for the same reasons, and that one cannot be argued without arguing the other.
G: Yes, I see that now, and I realize I was just coping with the fact that my wife is a slut and that I am a cuckold.

[Anonymous No.22438907]

>>22437678
I liked Looking for Alaska as a teen

[Anonymous No.22438915]

>>22437697
He was a persona non grata on tumblr for a long time. I believe it was something to do with the userbase's reblogging jokes, he wrote a long blogpost about a person jokingly misquoting him to make him look bad in a funny way or something like that, and tumblr userbase has been annoyed with him about it since then

[Anonymous No.22438925]

>>22438842
because women believe they should be able to fuck and dispose men at will, which they admittedly do.