A Rebuttal Of Every Twitard Argument Ever

So for today's Twilight article, I'm going to list every argument I've seen a Twitard use and then rebut them. I made this list in archaeology. And I wonder why I'm not doing well in that class.

If you hate it, just ignore it.
This is one of the dumber arguments I've seen. So the only emotions you're allowed to have are fanatical love and apathy? No. I hate rapists. Should I just pretend they don't exist? I hate the genocide in Darfur. Should I just pretend it's not happening? I hate Nazis. Should I just pretend the Holocaust didn't happen? No. You shouldn't bury your head in the sand just because you don't like it.

Why do you know so much if you hate it?
The Art of War informs me to "Know thy enemy." I'm not the kind of person who jumps on a bandwagon and hates something just because it looks dumb. To truly dislike something, you have to know it, WHICH IS GENERALLY WHY YOU HATE SOMETHING IN THE FIRST PLACE. You can't hate something if you don't know anything about it, unless you're like, a white supremacist or something. I couldn't make fun of Twilight as much as I do if I didn't know something about it. I don't know why Twitards assume that we hate something without knowing anything about it.

You're just jealous.
And now we get into an almost ad hominem argument. I guess it's easy to assume we're jealous of Stephenie Meyer: she's rich, she's famous, and thousands of people love her. But most of us aren't. I'm not. She's narcissistic, narrow minded, misogynistic, and immature. Why would I want to be like her? I want to get rich writing GOOD literature, not crappy wet dreams. I've also been told I'm jealous of Robert Pattinson, which was HILARIOUS. Sure, he's rich and famous and thousands of people love him, but I don't want to act and I don't want thousands of little girls in love with me. So no, I'm not jealous of anyone involved with Twilight. Why is it so hard to believe that I dislike the book itself?

Edward isn't abusive. He just loves her.
This is a classic rationalization used by abused girls everywhere. Edward's just protective! That's why he breaks her car so she can't go see Jacob. He just loves her, which is why he bribed his sister into kidnapping her so she couldn't go see her friends. If a guy is making you do things against your wishes, keeping you from seeing other people, and making your decisions for you, it doesn't matter if he says he loves you: It's still abuse. It's abuse even if he doesn't physically hurt you, which lots of people don't seem to realize.

You should read the book before you judge.
Related to number two. I have read it, which is why I hate it. This is, apparently, tough to process. Yes, I have read all four, plus Midnight Sun. Yes, I still hate them. And I'm not just biased against Twilight, because I've read The Host and I hated that too.

You obviously don't understand the book.
Oh, so you mean there ISN'T any blatant misogyny? You mean Edward DOESN'T disable her car? You mean Jacob doesn't imprint on a baby and won't actually fuck her when she's biologically seven years old? You mean Bella isn't whiny and annoying? You mean Edward does actually have a discernible personality? Wow, I guess I don't understand the book.

It's fictional, and she can do what she wants.
This is a particular pet peeve. Throughout the first three books, Stephenie Meyer makes it clear that the vampires can't have kids. Then in Breaking Dawn, Edward fathers Bella's child. This is handwaved with a bullshit explanation about Edward being an incubus, which is actually quite different from a vampire. Not to mention incubi turn into succubi to obtain semen from men and then use that to impregnate women and EDWARD IS A 108 YEAR OLD VIRGIN. Just because it's a fictional universe, doesn't mean Stephenie Meyer can suddenly make the rules she has set up for her fictional universe moot. Fiction still has to make sense in the context of the universe. Being fiction isn't an automatic license to do whatever you want, especially if it contradicts rules that you've set up yourself.

Bella chooses to be with Edward, so it's not anti feminist.
This is from my feminism and Twilight post from a few days ago:
"A woman can choose to give up her career or whatever to do stereotypical woman things, like taking care of kids. My mother was a teacher but gave that up for about fifteen years to take care of the kids, and she's a feminist. I don't think my home life would have been as good if she was working, and I definitely wouldn't have been as close to my family, so it's a good thing that she gave that up. My mom and Bella did the same thing: gave up a career to stay at home. Now, what makes my mom a feminist and Bella an anti-feminist? Well, let's take a look at the distinction. Even though my mom chose to be a stay at home mom, she still retains everything that makes her unique, even if my dad doesn't share her interests. For instance, she's a big sci fi fan, like me (we bond over Stargate and Firefly) but my dad HATES sci fi. My mom still maintains her interests, like Dean Koontz, Boggle, Trivial Pursuit, Criminal Minds, stuff like that. Bella gives up everything that makes her HER for Edward, but Edward doesn't change a thing. Bella gives up her family, her friends, her humanity, her education, and a potential career to be with Edward. It's not feminism just because she chooses to do that. It's anti-feminism because she's changing for Edward, not for herself. It's a fine line and somewhat difficult to make the distinction."

It's on the best-seller's list.
This just means that the book is popular, not that it's any sort of quality by any means. I mean, Mein Kampf was a bestseller. Twilight is not well written, but it taps into what preteen girls want. I could make a whole list of stupid things that were popular but I leave you with these gems: Nazism, goldfish swallowing, makeup foundation containing mercury, and foot binding. Popularity is by no means a measurement of the quality of a product.

If it's so bad, why was it made into a movie?
Because it's popular and it will make money for a lot of people.

Twilight has strong females! Look at Alice and Jane.
This was an argument used by Stephenie Meyer herself. Well, let's look at Alice and Jane. Alice is obsessed with stereotypical woman things, such as clothes and shopping. She enjoys putting on parties, buying presents for people, and doing makeovers. Empowering? Not really. I don't ever remember her doing actual fighting, unless it was offscreen. Jane does have a cool power and she is kind of badass, but she's psychotic and evil and is still the servant of the Volturi, who are all males. Also not that empowering. Let's look at the other females. Jessica is an airhead, Angela doesn't really have a personality, Renee always has to have someone look after her, Rosalie is a bitch, and Esme is a stereotypical Mama Bear who really does nothing but be maternal. The closest I can come to a strong female in the whole series is Leah, the only female werewolf. Except she spends most of Breaking Dawn whining about the other werewolves and the whole Sam/Emily thing and is always a follower to either Sam or Jacob. I have to give her credit though: By the end of Breaking Dawn, she chooses to move on from Sam and kind of reinvent herself. But still, she's not someone I would want as a role model.

Vampires aren't real, so she can change them.
No, that's not how it works. I've made this argument a few times: If all we have of vampires is the myths, then if we change the myths, they are no longer vampires. You can't go and change everything and say they're still vampires. I give her points for trying to be creative, but it just didn't work. It's like if she tried to retell the myth of Icarus and Daedelus, and they didn't fly out of their prison but instead beat up a bunch of guards and went out the front door and both of them lived. That is no longer the myth of Daedelus and Icarus, even though it isn't a real story.

It's just a book.
So literary analysis is a bad thing now? Some people make the argument that it's just a book and can't influence anyone. Because nobody has ever been influenced by books, ever. Like the Bible, The Jungle, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Their Eyes Were Watching God never caused anyone to change their way of thinking, ever.