#there's already been evidence disproving what the post says

[the-solar-system52]

INK DEMON AND BENDY THEORY

So Bendy's official Instagram account just posted something very interesting, and I want to theorise about it!

For awhile the social media account for Bendy have been doing these posts where Bendy takes a photo of a location from BATDR and steals an item from that location, and people have to guess what he took. I thought it was just an unimportant game to give the social media managers something to do, like Steelwool's 'Guess The Sketch', but now it's actually important.

The picture shows that Bendy built all his stolen items in the shape of his Ink Demon form, with an interesting caption. Some fans have took this post to mean that Ink Demon ordered small Bendy to make a statue of him, but I don't think that's true.

I'm a big fan of the "Bendy is the Ink Demon with the mind of a child, and they are NOT seperate people" theory, and I don't think this post disproves that.

So if you know my past TPOH and FNAF theories, then you know its time for another round of:

SOLAR NEEDLESSLY OVERANALYZING THE GRAMATICAL STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES TO MAKE A THEORY EVEN THOUGH MOST PEOPLE DON'T PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO HOW THEY PHRASE THINGS

Lets dissect this single sentence like a frog!!

"His inner Ink Demon is always on his mind-"

If Joey Drew Studios had phrased this as "IN his mind", then I see how this would be more literal. Meaning that the Ink Demon is a separate entity to Bendy and is literally living IN his mind.

But they didn't, they said "ON his mind". This phrase is usually used more metaphorically. If I'm hungry, I can say that dinner is 'on my mind', but that doesn't mean my dinner is actuallly INSIDE my brain. All this means is that Bendy has been thinking about his memories of his Ink Demon form, and therefore made a statue of him when he looked like that. Possibly to try and communicate his complicated feelings through art, or maybe he collected those specific items almost subconsciously.

Second of all, if the Ink Demon really was ordering Bendy around from inside his mind to make that statue for him, then I don't think it looks right. In BATIM, there are multiple shrines made by followers of the Ink Demon like Sammy, that look more demonic. As you can see, Bendy's statue doesn't look anything like that. Not a candle or pentagram in site! I feel like if this was made by the request of the Ink Demon, it would look way more like the ones from BATIM. But it doesn't! Instead, I think it looks more like it was made by Bendy on his own accord, like a children's drawing.

"His inner Ink Demon-"

Again, Joey Drew Studios decided to take the less-literal more-metaphorical route of this phrasing. If they just said "THE ink demon" then it would imply the Ink Demon as his own separate entity. But saying "inner" when referring to a buried memory of someone's past is not uncommon to do for regular use as well. For example, if I draw cats a certain way then I can say it's my "inner warrior cats fan" coming out. That doesn't mean there's actually a warrior cats fan inside my brain ordering me around, it's symbolic.

"on his mind, searching for an exit."

This also doesn't disprove my theory. The Keepers technology is preventing him from turning into his Ink Demom form. This means he can't use his powers and is weaker and smaller. It's clear he at least vaguely remembers what the Keepers did to him because of how scared he is of the GENT building.

Since he is in an incredibly hostile environment, it's no surprise he'd be thinking of a time where he wasn't as vulnerable. And he would also be trying to find a way to be strong again, in his own child-like way. Which explains the statue.

Personally, I find this all way more interesting then "rrr ink demon scary rrr", but to each their own.

I have more evidence for my "Bendy is the Ink Demon with the mind of a child, and they are NOT seperate people" theory outside of this instagram description, but I've already written enough for this post. I may make another post about it but we'll see. Please comment if you have anything else to add ^^

#I really need to get a hobby #I just wrote an entire tumblr post analysing ONE SENTENCE about my hyperfixation #batim #batim bendy #bendy #bendy and the dark revival #bendy and the ink machine #batdr #batdr bendy #the ink demon #batim theory #batdr theory #batdr the ink demon

[badlydrawncreepypasta]

Serious: Regarding the Sanityisforlosers situation

Trigger warning: the following post discusses grooming, stalking, sexual harassment, SA, necrophilia, anorexia and generally mature topics. Please read this post at your own discretion. If the aforementioned topics upset or trigger you, I strongly advise for you not to read.

Hi, everyone.

This isn't the sort of post that I wish to be making, because I prefer keeping personal problems and things such as online drama away from this blog. After all, this is the place I go to unwind and simply fool about.

However, things have gotten so bad that it has severely affected not only myself but everybody involved. For this reason, I can no longer afford to remain quiet on the matter, primarily for Sanity's sake.

It's no secret that I am close friends with Sanityisforlosers. I acknowledge that as a result, personal biases may rear their head and this post is, in fact, primarily defending him. However, the main purpose of this post is to clear up misinformation that has primarily been spread by the people calling him out.

If anybody is familiar with the characters Julius the Dressmaker and Killian Lynch, or has written for the character in any way, they may have received anons such as the following:

All the claims made by these anonymous messengers are entirely untrue. Arguments below:

However, before I go into this I wish to state EXPLICITLY: do NOT harass any of the parties mentioned within the post. These people have already been through enough, and I strongly implore for you to leave them alone about this issue once and for all.

"Sanity is a liar, having lied about MysticalSorcery being a groomer"

Untrue. Sanity made a callout post claiming that MysticalSorcery had minors in her server. This is far from claiming that MysticalSorcery is a groomer and this claim came to be due to a grave miscommunication between himself and a user named the-catcake, causing the spread of misinformation that Sanity did not intend for. A big reason for this is that Sanity was acting irrationally and emotionally, which does not make him running his mouth right, but the fact remains that the base claim was NOT MysticalSorcery allegedly being a groomer.

By now it has been established that MysticalSorcery did not have minors in her server, and that this idea came to be due to a conversation between Sanity and a third party which he felt he could trust, IvyDarkRose.

The callout by snuffbomb-awareness claims Ivy never explicitly confirmed the presence of minors, but this screenshot clearly states otherwise. As a result, Sanity had every reason to believe that there were minors present in nsfw spaces.

He has since apologised for making this claim, and MysticalSorcery has accepted this apology.

I will continue to reinstate: Tori/MysticalSorcery is innocent. Do not harass her and bring these claims up to her again, as they now have been disproven. She has done nothing wrong.

"Sanity is a stalker."

There is no evidence of this whatsoever, and word of mouth claims should not be trusted.

"Sanity claimed to be SA'd by Jesterca, Candy Pop's creator"

What Sanity claimed was that he was sexually harassed, not sexually assaulted. Jesterca sent them an unsolicited image of a bare ass (presumably a 3D model).

To claim this is sexual harassment is by definition correct, because unsolicited nsfw imagery falls under sexual harassment. Mind you, this all happened because Sanity pointed out that the parties opposing him are openly friends with Jesterca, who has already stirred up controversy due to queerphobic views.

"Sanity lied about his friendship with Krisantyl and made her uncomfortable."

I understand that because a screenshot was provided in a callout by Tumblr user snuffbomb-awareness, it is difficult to disprove this claim, and because what I am saying is word of mouth you have every right to take this argument with a grain of salt. However, this sudden change in stance strikes me as odd, as I have personally seen exchanges held between him and Krisantyl, and the both of them engaged very amicably with each other. Of course, all I have is my word of mouth, and for this specific case you are free to make up your own mind.

Additionally, I would like to address a few more wrongfully made claims brought up in the callout by snuffbomb-awareness:

"Sanity's OCs are a bad and fetishistic representation of MLM"

This claim, in my personal opinion is one of the most outlandish. Sanity is a pansexual man. He is quite literally mlm himself. With this I would then like to ask: on what basis is the relationship between Julius the Dressmaker and Killian Lynch a fetishistic depiction of mlm? Is it because one is feminine and the other masculine? Because the more feminine of the two feels more inclined to take a sexually submissive role?

These are dynamics that very much exist in mlm relationships. If one believes that this makes for an inherently fetishistic depiction of mlm, that says more about them than the person who wrote the dynamic. I say this myself as a bisexual man (and I understand that mlm can all have different opinions).

"Sanity glamorises SA, anorexia and necrophilia through his works and OCs"

Once again a claim that upon closer inspection simply is preposterous.

Killian Lynch and Julius the Dressmaker both are characters who engage in sexual violence and necrophilia, yes. This is not a secret. However, these actions are not painted out to be a good thing and are supposed to be bad and horrify you. They are horror character, after all. A prime example of this is an extreme horror piece which Sanity posted a while back of his character, Killian.

Not only is there a disclaimer right at the top of the post, Sanity additionally triggered tagged this post appropriate.

As for anorexia, this claim also is blatantly false and even borders on being offensive, as Sanity once again not only doesn't make Julius' anorexia out to be a good thing; he has always been vocally pro-recovery as well.

Not only this, but Sanity suffers from anorexia himself and has been using his own experiences grappling with the disorder in order to write this accurately. This online debacle has caused him to relapse.

Closing Statement

Sanity is many things. He's brash, hot-headed, impulsive and an asshole. What is isn't is what these people claim he is: a liar, stalker, harasser, fetishiser of mlm.

I can agree with the notion that a lot of this could have largely been prevented if communication had run more smoothly. I do not agree with the way Sanity handled his accusations towards Tori. He was emotional and approached the situation incredibly irrationally, and no, I don't believe it was right for MysticalSorcery to be compared to SnuffBomb.

You would think that because Sanity has publicly apologised and this was accepted, that people would stop spreading misinformation now, but within just a day of the apology being issued this has only worsened. It is for this reason that I am writing this post. Please let it rest now. Tori wants no more of this. Sanity wants no more of this.

Whoever the anon may be who has been spamming the inboxes of Julius fans, stop. You have stressed people out and you are not behaving productively.

This post may be edited to add additional evidence. Additionally, I would appreciate for people to spread this through reblogging. I simply wish for the truth to be brought to light.

#serious #not a request #long post #slenderman #jeff the killer #marble hornets #creepypasta #julius the dressmaker #killian lynch #jason the toymaker #I'm sorry for tagging it like this. however the callout was tagged this way too and I need this to have reach

[mymoonfearblog]

"Side Two" Theory: The Web and "Protocol"

These are my admittedly rudimentary thoughts on what to expect of The Magnus Protocol. I'll note for starters that I have only just joined the online fandom so I have NO idea what kind of speculation has already happened and someone may have already said this somewhere. Not intentionally copying anyone though.

So it seems like the primary speculation starts with how the world of TMP is connected to the world of TMA...

One thing my friend Roxy @the-sound-and-the-furry had brought up with me on call following us listening to the TMA finale was the distinction between the titles of the two series', and how telling it could be. We know the Eye to be an entity not inclined towards any sort of direct action or interference - the dissonance between this and Jon's behaviors during the series being one of the main tells that he's not strictly in association with the Eye - and the title of Archives lends itself to this as well. What has happened has already happened, and you're a mere observer of it.

The title of Protocol, on the other hand, is a very proactive title, as Roxy pointed out. 'Protocol' is based around a simple question:

"What do we do if X happens?"

Within a week of this conversation, Roxy shared the following with me.

So I think this is a really sexy theory, and positing the idea of "is this the universe we came from, the next universe, or perhaps the PREVIOUS one" I think is key to answering the questions we all have about TMP.

But later on, in a similar conversation, something entirely different occurred to me.

In this instance, we were discussing the specifics of the TMA finale. Specifically, the Web's (alleged) plan and what about it did or didn't make sense. Here were my messages:

(I am very aware the Spider chose the Eye specifically for its foolish nature this is just talking about hypothetically while it was initially forming its plan).

Roxy's notions about this:

It was in the process of replying to this idea that I was struck by the larger theory.

"The Magnus Protocol".

"What do we do if there's another Magnus?"

We know the Institute at least exists in the world of TMP, so ostensibly Magnus would've been planning the same things here.

And speaking of...

I think that with the tone of Gwendolyn Bouchard in the trailer, we sort of naturally pegged her as a sinister counterpart to Elias as we knew him in the series. But it makes far more sense that she'd be a pissed-off relative to me.

(The Smirke Line doc is a separate theory doc I had created earlier in my listening to the series. Perhaps someday I'll get into it or discuss the specifics of the Web's overarching nature in other Powers' business. This is not that post, however. For the time being I think it's self-explanatory enough.)

There's also the fact that in this universe, modern technology is used to make the recordings, which given the Web's history with technology, and the incompatibility of the stories with it which created the necessity for the tapes, would suggest to me an entirely different type of plan for this universe.

I finally got the chance to go over the ARG results with some friends, and I won't say anything there particularly jumped out at me in terms of supporting or disproving this idea. But no loss is a win where I'm concerned, at least in the short term. I'm fully ready for this to be thrown out in episode one.

There was one other thought which did occur to me, though I'm not entirely sure I have the evidence necessary to support it, and it pretty much makes for just messy speculation right now. I'd be remiss if there's even a chance it's true and I didn't put it out there, though.

Throwing everything I just said about which universe we're in out the window, let's assume we ARE in the universe which follows the initial one from TMA - the one the entities were sent to.

Given that there are aspects to the Web's theoretical plan that seem confusing on paper, as well as one particular web-based episode I think didn't actually get explored further later in the show and its clues were never explained (hint: it's in season four), can we be so certain we know the ORIGINAL finale plan in its entirety?

This merits further investigation. But I do wonder if it's in any way possible that, should my idea about the Web's possible 'alternate route' be accurate, the original series was in some way meant to carry out this plan all along. That gets a bit red-string, I know. But for the moment, I'm not sure it's necessarily proven wrong. Feel free to comment or ask me about it if there are things that you think do, though. I'm very interested in unpacking this further and that's hard to do in a bubble.

Probably several other spider-based posts to come in the near future. I promise to occasionally talk about other things as well, maybe. There's several things I still haven't unpacked here that square interestingly with these ideas but I think it's too much for one post, and I don't want to go any further off the rails than I already have.

This post is already too much. If you did read it then cheers. Please come talk to me about stuff I've been waiting nearly a YEAR to talk to this fandom.

#the magnus archives #tma #the magnus protocol #side two theory #i'll see you guys on thursday when this all gets hardcore debunked in the first episode #statement of res regarding #magpod #tmagp

[eenochian]

With all of the MW3 “leaks” going around, I feel like it’s especially important to check your sources! The two leaks that I’ve seen spreading like wildfire are these three comments from TikTok:

I’m happy to confirm that these are fake. The comments really do exist, but the accounts they are associated with are not real.

(more info BTC – sorry for the long post)

The account impersonating Samuel Roukin has been around since January, and was so convincing that some of the other cast members started following it. However, Sam confirmed several months ago (if anyone has a link/screenshot, pls send it to me) that he does NOT have a TikTok account. It’s a fake.

The Elliot Knight account is a little harder to disprove, since Elliot has not publicly confirmed whether or not he has a TikTok to my knowledge. However, I’ve seen other people say that it’s confirmed to be fake (again, proof is appreciated) and that Elliot does not have a TikTok account. So, again, it’s a fake.

Any spoilers, especially ones as major as a character death, would be a breach of the actor’s NDA. If you don’t know what an NDA is, it stands for “Non-Disclosure Agreement” – basically, it’s a legal contract that prevents an individual from sharing certain sensitive information with a third party. In entertainment, this is used to prevent actors from sharing spoilers about the projects they’re in. Studio lawyers are very firm with these contracts; if a signee breaks their NDA, they can suffer legal ramifications such as lawsuits, financial penalties, and even criminal charges.

A recent example of an NDA break is in the Resident Evil 4 Remake. The original voice of Wesker (D.C. Douglas) leaked confidential information to fans, which resulted in him being booted from all future projects by Capcom. NDAs are taken very seriously, actors generally do not want to break them.

Edit: Without seeing their NDAs, it’s impossible to know whether this is actually a breach of it. However, it seems very likely that death-related info, even just the number of deaths, is considered confidential.

If you see major spoilers online, PLEASE confirm whether or not they come from a reliable source before spreading them and claiming that they’re true. Even if you see a leak from a reliable source, ALWAYS take the information with a massive grain of salt. Leaks are seldom 100% accurate, as anything is subject to last-minute changes.

I’ll edit this to add in proof if I can find any!

For anyone wondering what the fake TikTok accounts look like, here they are—

Make sure to hug your faves close, and happy scrolling! 🫶🩷

Edit: Not necessarily “proof”, but a good piece of evidence against the Elliot account is that it only posts old videos that already exist on his Instagram. The screenshots below are from the same video, posted on IG vs. TikTok.

#call of duty #cod #cod mw2 #cod mwii #mw2 #mwii #cod mw3 #cod mwiii #mw3 #mwiii #this may not be obvious to everyone. but pay attention to the way these accounts *type* as well! #the sam acc uses slang that i’ve never seen him use elsewhere– major red flag for me!

[the-final-sif]

Hello! I recently came across your blog and love your take on things, mainly because they’re very level headed and thought out!

I was wondering, based on what we know, what do you think is going to happen with all of this? And if this has already been answered, you can just ignore this lol :)

Thank you! Trying my best to get a handle on things and help others do the same.

As for what I think is going to happen, there was an interesting discussion I had with @godzibane that I think covers a lot of what we could reasonably expect.

To summarize that post though, I think that the odds of Dream facing criminal charges are next to zero. Regardless of whether he's done anything Amanda said he did or not. Everything I've read says that Snapchat won't be able to retrieve any actual image/video files from Jan/feb at this point, and without those a charge/case is going to be next to impossible. So even if she was telling the truth, it would really only her word against Dream's, and that's not enough for a court case. Particularly not when her own credibility as a witness could be demolished by her behavior on twitter.

Now, if the allegations are false, Dream has one of the most straightforward defamation cases that I have ever seen. Like, to the point of comical. If she can't prove her case, she's defamed him. The more evidence Dream can provide that she's lying (snapchat metadata may serve him well here, depending on if they talked on there/what they discussed, he may be able to factually disprove her claims), the stronger his case gets. If Bee is telling the truth and is willing to help/testify under oath, then I'm really not sure how a good set of lawyers could fuck this case up. Like, this would be straight up two per se charges. He wouldn't even need to prove damages AFAIK.

Slander per se is defined as words that are slanderous in themselves without proof of actual damages. For example, if an utterance charges (a) the commission of a crime, (b) imputes some offensive or loathsome disease that would tend to deprive a person of society, (c) matters incompatible with business, trade, profession, or office, or (d) charges serious sexual misconduct. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 570 (1976).

Now, I think a lawsuit may end up getting filed here. Amanda did uh, well she doxxed herself. Which is. A really bad idea for all sorts of reasons. There's also at least one person that likely went to school with her (Bee) who would almost certainly be willing to disclose information about what school Amanda went to to lawyers to make contacting/serving her very easy.

If the allegations are false, a lawsuit also would be a way for Dream to add provable records to the public record where they become worth way more than "just trust me this is unaltered" so it'd be a good move both legally speaking and for PR.

I'm not convinced a case like this would go to trial. I mean, I do not know what sort of resources Amanda has. But lawyers are very expensive, and if Dream files in Florida instead of NJ which to my understanding would be possible, Amanda may then have to travel to Florida or hire a lawyer within Florida to defend her. If her claims are false, the sudden expenses may suddenly make holding onto those claims no longer worth it. In which case she would probably attempt to apologize/settle.

Now, to my understanding, while she could retract/apologize, Dream could still sue her if her claims are false. But I'm doubtful Dream would be interested in pursuing the case much further than getting an apology and some sort of settlement to send a message.

So, I think we will hopefully end up seeing some stuff from lawyers, although I'm hoping at least one of the involved parties mentions when things become a matter of public record, since it can be such a pain to track down court records w/o a docket number.

(also as a note I am not a lawyer, nor trained in anything to do with law, this is all from my personal understanding and could be incorrect in many different ways!)

#dream discourse #discourse #sif speaks #sif answers #anonymous

[tobiasdrake]

Episode 24: The Sigh of Haruhi Suzumiya, Part 5

Been dreading this one because I really liked the confrontation at the end of Part 4 and some individual scenes have been neat but for the most part this arc has been extremely gross.

Also, had to change the shady piracy website that I'm taking my screenshots from. We're watching the show on Crunchyroll but we have to do "Someone in the extended family has a subscription and we all share" shenanigans for all of our streaming services so nobody knows who had the Crunchyroll password and I can't get it on my computer.

Yuki has a cat now. I wonder if she'll get to keep it. I would love to see Yuki transition from stoic robot with no furnishings to stoic robot who is a cat person now.

Her apartment filled with just that one kotatsu and also a scratching post, cat tree, cat tunnel, and food dishes.

Sitting at the kotatsu with a book open on the table, reading with a cat in her lap. Petting its head mechanically; The same exact motion on repeat like a metronome. "Kitty," she says aloud in her emotionless monotone.

In any case, we got through this shooting session without more Mikuru grossness so I'm hoping Haruhi learned something from yesterday's meltdown and reconciliation. I mean, this is still happening:

But that's still gonna happen. Haruhi gonna Haruhi.

I just. Would really like to see character growth come out of this gross arc.

Shamisen is amazingly verbose and capable of a complex understanding of language.

I want to keep him. I desperately want to keep him. Can we keep him? Please tell me we get to keep him.

I will trade this character for him.

Aww, we're sending Shamisen with Kyon. That's a shame. I was all set for Cat Ladybot Yuki.

At this point, the only reason I feel confident that those guys aren't another Haruhi Thing (TM) is because that's not her genre. XD

Part of me thinks it's for the best that Haruhi doesn't read medieval fantasy and didn't make a world with dragons and shit. But then I remember that she did make a world with reality-bending data aliens. Being as sci-fi nerd isn't any better than a fantasy nerd in this regard.

Who's up for a religious schism!?

Mikuru offers a conflicting interpretation of Haruhi to what Itsuki's been saying. Itsuki believes that, in the event three years ago, Haruhi created the universe. That, essentially, all things in existence are only three years old. There is no past beyond that point, which meshes with something Mikuru told us early on.

It's impossible to travel back in time beyond three years from today, for reasons unknown. This would make sense if there is no past, as Itsuki speculated.

If the universe sprang into existence fully formed from the timequake three years ago then it would be impossible to travel beyond the timequake.

The computer bug came to our time from a parallel reality 208 million years ago, according to Yuki. In order for that to be true, there must have existed a period of time 208 million years ago.

This doesn't disprove Haruhi creating the universe in the timequake. She could have created time retroactively. But it does mean that the nonexistence of time beyond the timequake cannot be used as evidence to prove that Haruhi created the universe, because time does exist beyond the timequake. Mikuru's organization can't reach it, but the Data Integration Thought Entity's awareness can.

Which, itself, makes sense since it's already been established that the aliens have a better grasp of time than the time travelers do. In any case, it seems likely that the world existed before three years ago.

As Yuki clarifies, Mikuru instead believes that the world was always like this but Haruhi has the ability to discover strange and mysterious things. There were always aliens, but Haruhi's abilities simply drew them in, basically.

I don't think that's correct either. Kyon brings up that all of the espers spontaneously developed their abilities and awareness of Haruhi during The Event Three Years Ago, which is fairly significant proof that the world was altered. Yuki's counterpoint... sucks?

"Maybe he lied."

I mean, sure, but if we go down that rabbit hole then maybe Haruhi has no powers and Yuki's just been using her alien magic to fake all of it this whole time. Anyone can be lying about anything, Yuki. That's a bad argument.

Obviously something happened three years ago because all three of them agree on that. Yuki, Mikuru, and Itsuki have all independently testified that some fucking shit went down three years ago that brought them all here.

I've already made my argument against Itsuki's interpretation. A decisive argument against "The world was always like this" is Mikuru herself. You could say that the extradimensional bug always existed, and Haruhi's logo simply drew it to her. You could say that the Celestials are a natural phenomenon that are simply being stirred up by Haruhi's emotions. You could say that Shamisen is actually a talking cat because of reasons, that simply crossed Haruhi's path.

But Mikuru Beam is pretty hard to equivocate. Haruhi gave Mikuru the ability to shoot a photon laser out of her eye, which she did not previously possess. (The time loop also comes to mind.) So. No, Mikuru. The world was not always like this. Haruhi is doing shit.

The most plausible explanation is the alternative one that Itsuki first introduced. The one where Haruhi did not create the world but did remake it. Her power simply erupted one day and expanded across the universe like Devil Homura's Labyrinth.

I get the point they're making here about the complexity of belief. Like a proper religion, at the end of the day, it is difficult to draw any factual conclusions about the true esoteric nature of Haruhi Suzumiya. But I think, if you look deep enough, there are sufficient pieces to draw suppositional conclusions, at least - but those may vary from person to person.

We'll never truly know.

Okay, I'm loving the idea of Mikuru and Itsuki's factions being hostile to one another and the inter-group drama that such an idea would create. Especially since we all have to play Nice Happy Club Friends in front of Haruhi.

Religious schism and political intrigue in my slice-of-life show about goldfish scooping with the local cosmic horror? Yes please.

But I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that *gestures at Mikuru* ALL OF THAT was stuff Mikuru went along with because she's trying to honeypot Kyon.

It feels like they're trying super hard to salvage what they've done with Mikuru and are instead making it worse.

That said, what I do like is that we didn't have any more gross Haruhi Molests Mikuru jokes in this whole episode. Itsuki's mad at Kyon for not fixing the "Haruhi's movie is warping reality" problem but I'm satisfied that Kyon and Haruhi's meltdown did result in changed behavior, at least for now.

She's still an asshole.

But at least she's backed off of the sexual harassment that these episodes had dialed up so high. So that's something.

Oh hey we're FINALLY having the lunch conversation that was promised all the way back in episode 6. Kyon's finally going to break the rules and leak everything to Haruhi.

And just like Yuki promised: Haruhi doesn't fucking care what you think, Kyon. In fact, she thinks you're making fun of her. Good job.

#the melancholy of haruhi suzumiya #haruhi suzumiya #yuki nagato #mikuru asahina #itsuki koizumi

[raxistaicho]

Fantasy Invader gets a disciple!

Recently @diaphin93​ went into it with @xenofan19​ in this post. I had a few points to add, though I refrained from just reblogging it because the post is already hella long.

Lonato was a minior lord who had mabey a couple hundred people who he multiplied into getting killed for his “revange” hardly a popular uprising but yay lie if you want.

He still quite clearly had the ardent support of his people on his march. I believe “multiplied” is meant to be “manipulated”, but there’s no evidence of this in the game.

Further down, Xeno says:

We actually see that he used and his people in his goal and gained surport from the westen church whitch was working with the Agarthans and Edelgard. Hell its impilled that Edelgard set this whole thing up just to have a look at Serios tomb showing how little she values the lifes of the common people.

The Western Church were working with the Agarthans? Where’s the evidence of that?

And yes, Edelgard did all that to get into the tomb of Seiros - to prove it’s empty. Edelgard knows Seiros is actually alive because she’s Rhea (she says that Thales that the bones not being there are “news”, suggesting that she allowed him to believe the plan was just to grab more Nabatean bones). The Sword of the Creator being there was what surprised her.

That said, we don’t know whether involving Lonato specifically was Edelgard’s intent. The WC Bishop takes credit for involving him in Ashe and Catherine’s paralogue,

In any case, the last point has been addressed many many times; Edelgard is killing a few now to spare another millennia of suffering in the future. The bandage has to be ripped off.

Edelgard ending shows that Hubert hunts down and get rid of uprisings and rebellions showing off Edelgard oppressive nature.

Wow, Elincia’s a fuckin’ tyrant then, isn’t she? Part 2 of Radiant Dawn is all about her getting rid of an uprising and a rebellion that unfortunately had support from the common people.

But seriously, suppressing rebellions before they can start is tyrannical? C’mon, snap out of it. Also,

Damn boy, VW Byleth’s such an oppressor.

Now I’m sure the defense here is going to be that Edelgard was suppressing civilian revolts against her while Byleth is stopping uprisings from Imperial nobility or the remnants of the military, but there’s no evidence for either. The Hubert ending that Edelgard’s detractors like to get upset about states,

In reality, their nights were filled with fierce combat against rebels, assassins, and those who slither in the dark.

Which is pretty vague, and really just seems to be a catch-all for various people who would want to break the post-war peace.

One member of the church thinks Dedue might be responsible not because of his race but because he is from a nation that was believed to have killed King Lambert. This in no way shows the church is xenophobic, just that one guy doesn’t trust Dudue because of past events. 

It’s not just one guy, and it’s not even just Duscur.

From chapter 4:

Also from chapter 4:

From Chapter 6:

Claude makes claims about the church that are never actually proven in game and he even says in VW that the teachings of the church are not xenophobic. Claude and Dimitri surport in Hopes makes no sense and is even disproved by the games own lore as well 90% of Claude claims come out of nowhere and have zero evidence. 

Yeah but here’s the thing, in VW it’s Lorenz, who knows Fodlan and the church better than Claude, who says it. Now yes, Claude disagrees with him, but the circumstances in VW are night and day from GW. In VW, Claude is rather brazenly looking to use the church’s influence and the Knights of Seiros, through Byleth, for his benefit. It’s natural then that he would be interested in brushing aside the worst of the church’s excesses: not only does he want them on his side, he has the perfect person to take over and fix the church’s problems.

Dimitri and Claude surport is poorly written in a secret chapter that ignores the canon all of the routes so sorry if I don’t take it with any facts definitely when Claude says nonsense that he never mentions before or after the event. 

Honestly this just reads to me like you don’t like what Hopes had to say about the church so you’re refusing to listen to it...

Edelgard  is willing working with that force and has shown a clear preference for the nobility system you claim she is trying to take down so much that Hopes shows she gives them special treatment and works ageist the common people.

Oh christ, don’t listen to Fantasy Invader. I mean it. Other sources of anti-Edelgard takes will say correct things on occasion, but he specifically doesn’t ever seem to have a clue what he’s talking about.

I’ve gone over his source on the point you’re making, he completely misinterpreted the line and forgot which character even said the offending sentence in question.

More here.

Like Edelgard own ending shows that she doesn’t make the changes you speak off 

What?

As the new Adrestian emperor, Edelgard dedicated her life to reshaping the delicate political structure of Fódlan. With tireless work and great sacrifice, she reformed the class system to ensure a free and independent society for all. In her later years, she entrusted her life's work to a worthy successor before finally vanishing from the public eye. 

It’s rather broadly spoken, yes, but it says she did the reforms.

Duscur was a flause flags operation carried out by Edelgard own allies and only the westen lords with most of the Kingdom not being involved.

It doesn’t matter that only a few of the Kingdom Lords were involved; they still conspired in regicide. The important point here is that since they did with it Lambert, they’d do it again with Dimitri if necessary.

Edelgard also never tried to help the people of Duscur and has zero plans or goals to help them simple because they are not form Fodlan so don’t matter to her.

Like Edelgard comes off worse in that situation then either the Kingdom or Church as unlike them she never even tries to help the people of Duscur.

How would she help the people of Duscur? She’s an Adrestian princess/emperor. It was the Faerghans who committed a genocide. To help the people of Duscur she’d have to take over the country first. You know, that thing you get mad at her about.

Or what, do you think she’d have any success by going, “actually, I know the people of Duscur didn’t kill King Lambert, and I know this because the actual perpetrator told me! N-no, I can’t actually support this claim...”

People didn’t listen to Dimitri when he said the people of Duscur were innocent, and he was there at the time. Who on earth is going to listen to the princess of another country who was on the other side of the continent at the time?

Lastly, on the point about her having no plans to help them, just because nothing is said of the people of Duscur in CF or SB doesn’t mean Edelgard has no plans for them. They, too, are part of the oppressed peoples she hopes to uplift. Only AM and AG focus on Duscur, because it’s intrinsically tied to Dimitri’s character plot. Much like how the Faerghan and Leicesterian routes don’t really have much to say about Brigid.

And lastly, yes, the Tragedy of Duscur was the assassination attempt planned by the Agarthans and instigated with the support of the Western lords. But the tragedy of Duscur was when the people of Faerghus went full Faerghan Revenge mode and launched a genocide of the people of Duscur. The Agarthans didn’t mind-control the people of Faerghus to do that, they did it on their own.

And yet neither Dimitri’s fans nor AM or AG seem interested in addressing the point. Dimitri only ever seeks to punish the nobles who were behind the Tragedy, but there’s never any word of any actual repentance from the Faerghan troops who did the tragedy. It’s bizarre how it seems like the two events cannot be decoupled in the minds of the writers or Edelgard’s detractors, as though the Faerghans going full Revenge Brain Mode and genociding an entire people because they think they killed their king was just the inevitable outcome of Lambert being assassinated. It was like mud slides just naturally following a fierce rainstorm due to the physics involved, rather than the result of Faerghus’s culture of honoring and avenging the dead over the living.

But then again AM, AG, and most of all Edelgard’s detractors, are not interested in criticizing the flaws of Faerghus’s culture.

Lol you do know it could be argued that Edelgard starts a war of faith in Hopes as she wants her new state church to become the main one whitch would grant her more religious power in Fodlan whitch is actually brought up in AG. 

Oh yeah, you’re definitely listening too much to Fantasy Invader...

Hey, did you know Fantasy Invader thinks this banner:

Is symbolic for this banner:

Despite them clearly looking completely different?

Anyways, yeah, the only thing we hear about the Southern Church in AG is that Gilbert and Gautier just vaguely don’t like the sounds of what they’re preaching, and seriously fuck both those men. If they think it’s bad, it can only be good. Their stopped clock had its minute hand ripped off.

She is even more obsessed over Byleth then Rhea but never actually opens up to them and right up to the end of the game lies to control Byleth. You can try and lie and claim how Dimitri and Rhea would be worse but the game shows how Edelgard is far more toxic partner. 

Yeah, get back to me when Edelgard steals an unconscious Byleth away into her room for an indeterminate period of time to give them a lap pillow treatment and then comes just shy of sexually assaulting them...

Edelgard doesn’t tell Byleth what to think or what to believe. In fact she frequently just asks questions of Byleth throughout White Clouds to try to get them to consider the world and their place in it more clearly.

Dimitri spent 5 years defending his people from being slaughtered by Edelgard as she was wiping out entire villages simple because they refuse to bow to her 

Gonna need evidence of that, chief.

#Fire Emblem Three Houses #fire emblem three hopes #Edelgard von Hresvelg #edelgard positive #edelgard discourse #Diaphin93 #xenofan19

[hugthesquids]

Actual Splatoon canon lore

So I saw a post about supposed Splatoon canon lore that was far inaccurate and literally had info that was just headcanons that contradicted official statements made by the actual devs and Nintendo.

(Btw it’s very much cool to have hcs/speculate on canon! It’s just presenting it as actual Splatoon canon that I’m not okay with as it can spread misinformation / misunderstanding. The post in question I saw was also very old so I get that too, however it was going around again and some of the info it had contradicted info revealed by Nintendo already back then and it still presented itself as canon lore. So this is just a heads up to clear up misinformation and to remember to not claim things as canon when they’re hcs!)

Are Inklings/Octolings made out of ink?

This is strongly hinted as true. Despite some people hc it otherwise, this is what Nintendo has often said about Inklings that they’re made out of liquid/ink. Inklings do have organs and a beak, but this doesn’t disprove Inklings being made out of ink as the devs literally has said they’re made out of ink/being mostly ink (and to speculate myself, I wouldn’t be surprised if the devs had something like “organs being made out of ink or proteins in the ink that solidifies upon human form”)

Inklings/Octolings cannot touch water?

Some people hc that Inklings are too heavy and therefore can’t swim because they sink, but this is literally one thing the devs have been the most clear on that not being true. Several statements from Hisashi Nogami and Nintendo say the Inklings actually dissolve in water because they have thin and permeable skin and so their ink based bodies bleed out in water. And the devs are pretty clear that Inklings can’t touch water at all, so it isn’t just not swimming in water.

Why do Inklings get splatted when hit by different colored ink?

We don’t know explicitly. Anyone that says so is just a headcanon/speculation and not a canon statement as of now. And such hc/speculation (based on canon information known) can literally just be “well they get splatted because of the same reason they can’t touch water. Different colored ink has a different composition and so it diffuses into Inklings with different ink colors which disrupts their ink-based bodies and their bodies splat.“

Further speculation of some previous points that’s built upon canon evidence “Inklings/Octolings respawn if given a source of substantial ink, such as the lifeboats they have on their back in Salmon Run that have a puddle of ink for their little soul to be in that is purely revived if a teammate provides ink, implying that Inklings are mainly made out of ink.“

So yeah I hope this can clear up some things! Again, I think headcanons are awesome and it’s great being able to speculate on things! I just think it’s important to not claim them as canon and be clear those are just hcs, especially when clear canon statements have been made.

Here are also sources for these things (the link to the articles will be in the comments. Here are just screenshots)

An interview with Hisashi Nogami on the Nintendo Switch news section:

An interview with Hisashi Nogami on Game Informer:

A post from the official NA Splatoon tumblr

Info from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Inkling Tips section (The screenshot is from Inkipedia’s article on the Inklings, which people should check out if they want sourced and accurate canon on Splatoon lore):

#splatoon #splatoon lore #splatoon (meta)

[is-the-owl-video-cute]

Sorry I'm just trying to keep track of all the blogs- Where do we stand on Scout? I saw someone saying that Scout stands with Agro but I didn't see anything on Scout's blog about that? I'd hate to have to block Scout because I love their cows, but I don't want to accidentally reblog from a bad source to my therian blog. I've already had to go through and delete a lot of posts from people like Page and other people from that thread.

Scout is fine. They sent a message supporting Agro because they’ve been friends for some time and Agro was getting a lot of hate, and they said they want to be left out of this drama which I intend to respect as much as possible, but I do at least want to clarify that all they did was send well wishes to a friend clearly having a hard time. I have received countless anons trying to leverage my hatred for zoophilia as a weapon against Scout by completely misrepresenting the message they sent Agro and blatantly lying, and I don’t want others to fall for it if they receive the same. I don’t want people dragging them into drama they had no part in and wanted no part in.

As I have stated previously, I do believe I gravely misunderstood Agro’s stance and interpretation of that post which they have apparently clarified, and I do not hold anything against them outside minor disagreements we’ve had before. Based on what I understand about what they’ve said, they reblogged it because it suffers from intrusive thoughts and feels a great deal of guilt for them. I don’t have anything against people with intrusive thoughts, the post itself was specifically trying to classify furries and therians as zoophiles as though the label is benign or even applies to either group as a whole. The people to actually avoid would be Aestherians, a-dragons-journal, aevirest, xcekait, smol-paws, and who-is-page as those were the blogs actively normalizing zoophilia. I don’t know the full extent of where Agro falls on any of that, and I don’t really care that much at this point as they confirmed they are not a zoophile and were just experiencing guilt for their intrusive thoughts.

My reply to that post was never intended to single Agro out, it was just the context that lead me to that thread which I was reasonably disturbed by, and I tried to steer the conversation back to just discussing why endorsing zoophilia is wrong but evidently I did not emphasize that enough. From what I’ve been told, I was given misinformation about Agro being a proship and I’m not going to dig through all of its blogs to try to disprove that since I have enough context now to at least know this was all likely a misunderstanding wrt Agro’s involvement. I genuinely want to just leave it alone as it was caught in the crossfire far more than I had anticipated and certainly more than I ever would have intended, and I sincerely hope others do the same because even with the actual zoophile apologists I wanted no further action to be taken than blocking or reporting their posts.

In terms of Agro, I would say that if you are not blocked by it, you can read its posts and make your own judgement based on what you find. I’m respecting its privacy and TOS on the matter and will not be block-evading to stalk through its blog. It will know its own stance better than I do. I regret not making it clearer that my response to that post was not intended to attack Agro and was only intended to respond to what was being said and serve as a free blocklist of people actually adding to the thread.

[dreamsy990]

kris is NOT the knight

saw a post earlier about how kris might be the knight and. yeah i guess i wanted to comment on it. so heres all my comments w the whole idea complied into one post for simplicity (with a few very minor edits)

enjoy:

---

The theory that Kris is the knight can’t be true. or at least, not without a lot of stretches. the main point most people make about this is the fact that kris physically couldn’t have made the cyber world. it had to be made sometime between when berdly and noelle arrive at the library and when kris and susie come, likely while they were in the closet. 

this is because noelle and berdly were already sitting down with their books out when the fountain was created. if the dark world had already been there, they wouldn’t have been able to sit down and start studying. It must have been created while they were already there, likely by someone hiding in the closet, as implied with the text ‘a large person could fit inside’ when looking at it. 

the only other theory that might make this idea reasonable is that there are multiple knights. i highly doubt that idea, but there’s technically no strong evidence of that beyond the fact that the knight is only ever referred to as one person, so i suppose it could be true. 

I think the only dark worlds kris has created (as of now, based on what we currently know) are the one at the end of chapter 2, and the one at the very start of chapter 1, that being the closet. We know that kris has already been there before because of their previous save file, and hesitance to enter it at all.

when i say the closet dark world, i mean ONLY the closet dark world. Not the extra classroom. That, i believe, was made by someone else afterwards. King’s dialogue implies that kris is NOT the knight he met, and that he’s fighting them on behalf of the knight. While this might be him fighting you, the player, on behalf of the knight, kris, that doesn’t seem to be the case. You could get that idea from the line “By the Knight's will, I shall shatter your heart to pieces!”, but it probably couldn’t have been Kris. 

They weren’t possessed until the start of chapter 1, and by then, the dark world already existed. They couldn’t have made it after the start of chapter one but before our entry, so they wouldn’t have been able to warn king at their very first arrival. The same argument also disproves them being able to go talk to king if the dark world already existed. They wouldn’t have had a chance to go and warn king about the player and that he should fight them. And why would they want him to hurt ralsei or susie?

Also, many of the knights actions seem pretty out of character for kris. While we don’t have exactly obvious evidence of who they are, we can make assumptions based on what other characters say and dialogue options that they aren’t the kind of person who’d put a tyrant like king in power or try to bring about the roaring. 

We know from a lot of kris and noelle’s interactions that they dont mean any harm. They pull harmless pranks, but nothing that would really hurt noelle. They’re also disapproving of how the player tries to ‘prank’ noelle by jumping off a switch at one point, since it could have seriously hurt her. You can see that response from how kris reacts to noelle doing it to them afterwards, and how they seem genuinely upset.

Also in snowgrave, kris actively doesn’t want you to continue the route, shown from the dialouge options that will cancel it out having exclamation points. Like they’re trying to convince you to stop before you hurt anyone else, especially their friend. That doesn’t exactly sound like the behavior of someone who would put tyrants into power and try to end the world. We know ending the world IS the knights goal from their name quite literally being the ROARING knight, which they introduced themself to Queen as. It’s weird that someone would be taking actions that would lead to the end of the world, and be named after that world ending event, and for it to be a coincidence. And even if they didn’t know that and kris was somehow the knight, that doesn’t change the fact that at the end of chapter 2 kris opens a fountain despite ralsei’s warning. Its not like them to WANT the end of the world. 

So yeah, theres my kris isnt the knight argument!!! ok bye now 

#kris dreemurr #kris deltarune #kris dr #deltarune #deltarune knight #the roaring knight #knight deltarune #kris is the knight #but like #no they are not #deltarune theory #who is the knight guyssssssssssss #not kris thats for sure #in all seriousness i just #dont care if kris ends up the knight #like i have no strong opinion on the theory #i just dont think its correct #deltarune theories

[whatudowhennooneseesyou]

as a person who doesn’t want to have kids….i completely agree with everyone saying you’re being a little dismissive about the topic.

you want some proof! here’s some:

“I know a lot of women who regret having children and say they wouldn't do it again given the opportunity.” - you providing one sided accounts of mothers without acknowledging the fact that plenty of women enjoy having children.

“However, I also feel like you can create a legacy without needing to necessarily have children.” - your response to someone who stated quite explicitly that they want to have children. you don’t need to change their mind or disprove their reasoning for doing so.

“There's a part of me that wants to say 'I hope you do become a parent and get your wish' but that's probably not going to be comforting.” - i mean. you said it anyways? if it’s not comforting then don’t say it? especially if you’re going to identify that it’s not?

“However, I personally don't know how you would compromise and make sacrifices about having children w/o you or your partner holding resentment or anger.” - this is extremely black and white thinking. every single relationship is full of compromise, there’s never going to be a person who agrees with you fully on something. if you think you can’t make that compromise that’s fine, but not everyone thinks or acts the same as you do.

it’s not that you’re not allowed to have your own opinions on things. you’re phrasing your opinions in a way that’s implying that others can’t have different opinions, and that’s the issue. if someone tells you that they feel a certain way, you can say “well, i think…”. you’re going about it as “that’s not true. here’s what i think and what i think is right.” that might not be your intention, but that’s the way you’re coming off.

also this has already been said, but tagging people in a post without asking if they wanted to talk about something like this is not okay. the right thing to do would have been to gather up people who wanted to talk about it, and who identified explicitly that they did, and tag them. not random people who didn’t consent to that.

signing off as N in case we decide to make this into a conversation (which i would be more than happy to do).

Okay, this is the last one I'll respond too because you have taken the time to give me tangible evidence so for that, I thank you.

Alright, I'll take a step back and admit that if you weren't a part of the conversation at the time, I can see why these would come across as dismissive.

The 'I know a lot of women' quote was a response to someone who said they don't want to regret having children, this is true and there has been a long debate discussing this term.

'However I also feel like you can create a legacy w/o having children' was related to a conversation about legacy, to which the response of the person commented agreed and said they hadn't thought of it that way before.

Firstly, how can you make compromises on having children? It's a fucking child! Please, explain to me on how you can compromise having children when one person does and the other doesn't.

I still don't understand about the tagging bit because they're not random people, they're all in my taglist and they have the option of not wanting to respond if they don't want too.

Finally, I do like that you boiled the issue down to 'implying others can't have a different opinion', thank you for that because that was not my intention at all.

But now that I can see it from a different perspective, I will reflect on it and try to be more tactful.

Thank you for being coherent in your criticism and I will take it on board.

#whatudowhennooneseesyou anon asks #whatudowhennooneseesyou answered asks #whatudowhennooneseesyou hard hours

[undecidedsoilder]

WHY PEDOPHILIA IS WRONG @GodVanisher (@pafu015) on Youtube

The original video of which you defended pedophilia was deleted due to the original poster’s channel being deleted, and YouTube wouldn’t let me put all these facts into one comment and post it. I said I’ll disprove you and everything you’ve said easily, and that’s what I’m going to do. Despite the original video being gone, don’t act like I’m putting words into your mouth when I quote what you say and debunk it.

Intentions don’t matter/Children can’t consent/Your individual evaluation (“test”) contradicts everything you’ve been previously saying, Age is NOT just a number, etc:

It’s insane how this goes over your head. “Intentions don’t matter” only doesn’t make sense to someone who lacks a basic understanding of how the world works. To say that intentions matter when they are just thoughts makes you delusional, and that makes absolutely no sense. No it makes complete sense to say intentions don’t matter, and it’s entirely undebatable because that’s factually how the world should and already does work. “Charged as if they were intentional” - You don’t understand that there are certain penalties that vary based on “intention”, but the action itself is the sole reason for the punishment, plus intention is roughly based on what actually happened to determine the thought process of the one being accused. That’s how investigation works. You should know this.

Thoughts and feelings don’t correspond to what actually happened, which is why everybody is judged on their actions alone. I’m not “basically saying that accidents don’t exist”, what does that even have to do with what Im saying? That is genuinely the most smooth-brain takeaway from what Im telling you. For example, if you spilled a glass of water wether on purpose or not, you would still clean it up because there is water on the floor regardless of if you mean to spill it or not. Even for something more subtitle like if someone hit you while coming through the door, you wouldn’t punish them either way because there’s no telling if they meant to hit you or not, only what actually happened. Intentions don’t matter and that is a fact.

“Intentions matter because I don’t want to accept that my actions actually have consequences” is basically what you’re saying and that makes absolutely no sense.

And like said, the thoughts of one person doesn’t make what they did right or wrong/moral or immoral. The thoughts of one person isn’t universal. That’s like saying the slaughter of a family is morally righteous because the person who did the crime thought he was in the right. That’s not exactly how morality works.

By your logic, you should believe that a person who did a crime somehow has a say in what they did was moral, and the people who are on the receiving end don’t get a say in it. If you base your sense of morality purely on the perception of someone else, then you fundamentally lack the ability to decide right and wrong for yourself. You shouldn’t even be speaking on this topic, because you can’t even determine if sleeping with someone who cannot consent (children) is right or wrong.

You have fundamental issues trying to understand concepts, logic, systems, values, morals, and evidence.

And although your test/individual evaluation basically contradicts everything you’ve been saying, and I should be ignoring it, you can’t just act like you never said what you’ve been saying previously. So I’m going to disprove those first before proving why the test is actually worse than redundant:

The concepts and premises that make up your opinion & arguments on this topic make no sense. “Age is just a number, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid” - This is wrong. You’re genuinely stupid if think that age is just a number. Age being a huge factor in itself and people developing and maturing with age is proof in itself that age does matter, anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. Plus it is scientifically proven that the brain goes through stages as people age. That fact alone disproves you and you can’t deny it.

People who think “age is just a number” are fundamentally part of the problem.

You like to act as if age, maturity, and intelligence aren’t related, when that isn’t even true. The reason you used a “shelter” argument, something that doesn’t correspond to reality, is because you needed a parameter that never happens. The shelter argument is a false equivalency, so that means you conclusion that there are kids that can consent and adults who can’t consent is absolutely redundant.

Unless you can prove that someone hasn’t mentally developed since they were a baby, who isn’t disabled, then you just proved that you’re stupid. Which means you can’t even argue against any of my points because yours were baseless off the rip.

An adult doesn’t get to decide whether a kid can mature or not. They don’t get to decide wether they are allowed “wait” or not. A child’s consent isn’t relative to your personal desires.

If you’re 18 and the person you want to be with is 17, you would wait until that person is 18. People do that all the time.

Your problem is that you want the adult to have the option to sleep with them whenever they see fit, which is dangerous.

The individual evaluation will make it so where a 18 and a 20 year old won’t be able to get together if the 20 year old didn’t take a test for something they can already do. That’s ridiculous.

“Children can’t consent” - This is correct. Kids literally being smarter than us, in let’s say, academics doesn’t automatically mean they can consent, nor does it mean their human right to protected via the age of consent law is invalid. Children’s rights and safety being violated is inevitable if there is no AOC law. Even if the adult isn’t trying to manipulate them, they are taking advantage of the fact that they can’t consent and that they are less mature. Manipulation doesn’t have to “start”, because you’re basically grooming them. That fact is inevitable.

“It’s easy to determine consent” is your main issue because you’re pretty lazy when it comes to something as serious as a child’s rights and safety. That self-convenient and biased sentiment is wholly wrong and blatantly evil. The AOC law is the easiest way to determine if someone can consent.

Since age, maturity, and intelligence are proven to be linked due to how our country functions, adults not being able to consent isn’t a thing, but children not being able to consent definitely is.

Logic based of a parameter that never happens makes your logic redundant.

Children legally not being able to consent isn’t stripping them of their human rights, it justifies them.

Your idea of trust is messed up. We should never “trust” adults with children. That in itself is a power imbalance. You’re basically leaving it up to an individual person to decide if someone is “ready”, and wether or not that individual is “good”. That’s not how it works, children not being able to consent doesn’t correspond, nor is it relative, to either of those things. How the hell is trusting an adult comparable to trusting a leader or president? The adult in the situation is fundamentally obscure their intentions for future actions are arbitrary, so how is that comparable to an elected official who has already laid out his intentions to even get in that position in the first place? Not only that, but country leader’s and political figures actions are relatively public, child abuse normally happens behind closed doors. Do you even understand the concept of trust and why we trust people? Obviously you don’t.

“There is nothing wrong with being with someone less mature” - Depends. If someone is 23 and dating a 30 year old that’s okay. But if it goes all the way to minor years then there’s EVERYTHING wrong with it.

“The age of consent law is screwing people over” - That is just an assumption you made. “Inaccurate and arbitrary” is also just an assumption you made. The only logical and unbiased thing about this topic you were able to muster is the hypothesis that there are adults who cannot consent and children who can consent, which is redundant because that NEVER holds true pretty much all the time. Like how you said that 5-7 year old girls mature faster than boys to prove that there are more than a few children that can consent, despite that being wrong and factually untrue, that statistic would mean that most kids do mature around a specific age, which you are against. A little maturity boost isn’t comparable to that of a grown adult. It’s also proven that girls and boys have the same amount of intelligence so that statistic is wholly irrelevant because this arbitrary amount of “maturity” doesn’t matter if they aren’t even more intelligent. If a 16 year old girl and a 18 year old male were raised in the same environment, the 18 year old will always be more intelligent. Factually, girls get abused and manipulated more than boys, so that statistic never holds true and since we’re talking about all genders that statistic doesn’t even apply to everyone making it useless. By the way, the way you structured that response and put it together made it seem like you were saying that 5 and 7 year olds can consent, which was both funny and pretty disgusting.

What even are those implications? Someone who can’t consent being a little more mature than someone who can’t consent doesn’t mean they can consent. Saying there’s a few kids who can consent is purely because there’s at least a minority in every majority, but even that doesn’t take away the several other points about children actually having rights, the power balance, etc.

I also find it funny how you use girls for an example, as girls are usually the primary target for this because they’re perceived as “more mature” by creeps and weirdos. They aren’t “mature for their age”, and that’s that. Looking for maturity in a child/kid is an oxymoron in itself.

It takes a certain amount of intelligence and maturity to consent of which children have neither.

Where are your priorities at? The test/individual evaluation contradicts everything you’ve previously been saying, that’s like confusing 12+3 with 12x3 and calling it the same. You didn’t want any consent law, yet you think the law is supposed to protect everybody? Despite the fact that adults don’t even need that protection.

And you’re putting boundaries on love which you specifically didn’t want there to be. Besides that naive and incorrect notion that love has no boundaries, love will always have boundaries so long as there is a consent law put in place, as there should be. The boundaries society sets aren’t stupid, it’s the narrative and agenda you’re trying to push that is actually stupid. Romantic love does have boundaries besides feelings though, like physical attraction and sexual preference for example. Just a little lesson on how that actually works.

You don’t have the right to take away someone’s freedom, especially not a child’s. Pedophilia is a one-way crime, if you get your life ruined from that it is purely a result of your own actions. That’s why adults are responsible and not children. You’re trying to push the narrative that children are responsible despite their inability to consent, when in reality, it’s adult who are responsible because they can.

Trying to say the minor is at fault too is victim blaming, due to the power imbalance and their entitlement to protection. Adults do not have the right or freedom to sleep with children, to even say that is next-level absurdity.

You want to ruin children’s lives for something so retarded, yet you want adults who prey on children to be free and still keep their livelihood. You make no sense.

————————

You don’t think that “age should be the only factor in this” while completely ignoring the reason why. Your point of view is narrowed down and fundamentally lacks nuance.

Absolutely NO research went into your points. Therefore they are redundant by default.

An age law is such a fundamental BASIC human right of children that literally every country has one, albeit some have it way too low. You even going as far as to say it’s stripping them of human rights while being so off-the-mark and inaccurate is absolutely insane. You don’t even know what their human rights are, because if you did you would understand why people are so strict about this topic in the first place. Human rights aren’t “flexible”, so long as someone is considered a child they are entitled to those rights of protection. You’re against that and it doesn’t make any sense.

You act like protecting children is exclusive to our society, which isn’t even true. I’d even go as far as to say that protecting younglings and offspring is fundamentally human nature.

A lot of people don’t understand this, but if the law assumes that an 17 year old can consent with a 18 year old, then that same logic also applies to any age too, which is dangerous. By saying that a 17 year old and an 18 year old should legally consent to each other, you can basically make the same logic for a 30 year old and a 16 year old. The law doesn’t work around your desires, that fact isn’t ridiculous so much as it is inconvenient for people. By saying that an 18 year old can be with a 16 year old, you’re already saying that the 16 year old can consent, which isn’t true. By saying that you’re also trying to it valid for a 30 year old to be with a 16 year old. The law is strict on this topic for a completely justifiable reason.

“Love is the motivation and people hate that for no reason” - People don’t hate that for no reason, you’ve just been closing your ears screaming “lalalalalalala”, while practically ignoring common sense and morals. The human rights of children aren’t here to work around your motivations.

You don’t understand that love on it’s own has no intrinsic value, as “love” can be a motivation for anything. Domestic abusers have love as a motivation all the time, so we shouldn’t hate that either? Yes, we should.

“Love has no boundaries.” - This is wrong. Love is bound by orientation and preferences, it’s just that the preferences for children is dangerous.

Society’s boundaries aren’t stupid, since age and maturity pretty much go hand in hand with how our society, country, and climate actually works. Animals can’t even consent either, that’s why we have boundaries for them.

Besides orientation and preferences, some people have morals and standards that essentially act as boundaries.

Love does have physical boundaries, not feelings alone. For example, some people can’t be attracted to fat people, and because of that they can’t fall in love with them. Decent people like me aren’t attracted to the young bodies of small children.

By saying that love has no physical boundaries, you’re basically saying sexuality isn’t even a thing. That’s like expecting a homosexual person to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.

“That means they are biased and shouldn’t speak on this topic” - You’re basically saying that you’re more qualified to speak on this topic more than people with firsthand experience of how this pedophilia problem negatively affects people, while simultaneously being biased yourself. Yet you think that people hate it for “no reason”. What the hell is wrong with you?

What’s even more ironic is that your premises and arguments aren’t supported by empirical evidence nor basic logistics that go into this topic.

You don’t know what arbitrary means, a law that has been adjusted and put in place for centuries is arbitrary, but a test that was merely an asspull of a solution isn’t? The test is arbitrary in itself. Besides, minors are proven to actually get abused and manipulated way more than adults have, and the age of consent law has shown to be beneficial for many people, so it is neither inaccurate or arbitrary. We can’t just swap out the number and nothing will change. You just don’t like, and just can’t handle, that the facts don’t actually work in your favor, neither does it work around your morals and bias.

An actual arbitrary number is the game where you have to “guess the number”, because it is vague and can be literally any number. That isn’t the case for the consent law. Just a little lesson on what an arbitrary number actually is.

“This isn’t about me” is a defense/coping mechanism so you can avoid being held to your own ideology. Despite using arguments notoriously used by pedophiles and calling people who disagree stupid simply to get a reaction out of people. Id go as far as to say if it wasn’t about you before it definitely is now because you’re trying to integrate a broken system into our society which will ultimately lead to human rights being violated for both the current and future generations, which stems from a complete misunderstanding of your own rights. And people in this comment section are using our right to suppress and shut you down for advocating and trying to enforce on us such a system, trying to suppress our pride and values for the sake of something that will ultimately make society worse. Just a little lesson on what freedom of speech actually is.

If you’re offended and angry that a system that prevents adults from sleeping with minors is actively being “pushed on you”, despite it not even applying to you because you’re an adult who can consent, then that simply means that you don’t want to be restricted from going after children. Since you believe love isn’t bound by anything physical, meaning you don’t care about the age but rather “if they’re ready”, then there’s literally nothing stopping you from going after a child if you perceive they’re ready.

Since you believe love has no boundaries you would be with a child if your feelings called for it, because you don’t necessarily have a grasp on how age and maturity correlate.

It’s not “making assumptions” about you, it’s essentially putting 2 and 2 together through a logical examination. That isn’t a judgement beyond my reach.

“I did a lot of emotional maturing lately and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s easy to decide who you want to be with” - No level 1 of emotional maturity is know that this is subjective and it’s not necessary easy for everyone to determine who you want to devote care and time to.

Being with with a child is morally wrong. If the adult shouldn’t “cross the line” that’s power imbalance in itself.

And the reason you say that deciding who you want to be with is like “level 1 of maturity” is because you’re trying to defend the excuse of the minor being “mature for their age” which is disgusting and untrue.

Age not having intrinsiv meaning or value doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any meaning or value at all, the problem is just that your point of view is very, very narrowed down and inaccurate. Sleeping with children is wrong, I just give you both logical, statistical, biological, and real-world evidence why.

You don’t understand that being with a child and being with a less mature adult is completely different, it’s stupid and insane how you confuse the two. No, there is everything wrong with being with a child that’s so drastically less intelligent and immature.

You see a dislike for pedophiles as a dumb “root of hatred” and you think people “don’t like it for no reason” which is just an example of your fundamental bias towards the adult because the foundations for all your arguments including the test will ultimately leave the rights of children in the hands of individuals rather than a beneficial system. It shows how you did little to no research on this topic while trying to give your opinion on it, which is pretty stupid and it makes your root of empathy towards pedophiles even more misplaced, irrational, and dumber.

You don’t even know how the law works, or why we even have laws in the first place. You don’t know what human rights are either.

The law doesn’t just apply to evil people it applies to everybody. You think the law should protect everybody but at the same time it shouldn’t apply to certain people, that doesn’t make any sense. You basically want the law to be convenient for people, that’s just wishful thinking my guy. Someone can’t be an offender or a criminal without breaking a law in the first place, so it doesn’t inherently restrict people with the intention to do evil, only the action itself. For example, just because you won’t shoot up a school, doesn’t mean that you should be allowed to bring weapons to class. That’s why society has boundaries and laws.

Yes, the AOC law does apply to adults who are supposedly “good” because not only does the law apply to everybody, but the children’s inability consent isn’t relative to if the adult is a good person or not.

The AOC law isn’t here to “make sense” for specific individuals who are supposedly “good”, it already makes sense in itself because it prevents adults from being with children who cannot consent. An adult doesn’t have to actively use tactics to manipulate a child, because being with someone who can’t consent is abusive and taking advantage all on it’s own. Adults manipulating children is literally inevitable.

Your freedom and rights end the moment they negatively affect other people or infringe on the rights of others.

-People can’t use their “freedom of speech” to make death threats and use it to create panic.

-The right to have a gun doesn’t mean that you can bring it literally anywhere.

-Your right to sleep with someone is restricted when that other person cannot consent. That’s why forms of “grape” are illegal, which sleeping with a child is a statutory form of “grape”.

“You don’t need to have self control if the child can consent”, basically means, “If I decide the child can consent I can do whatever I want without consequence.” Holy sh!t, that’s messed up.

“Everybody learns differently” - That is just an assumption you made. People learning differently in the history of anything doesn’t stop people from coming to the same consensus. That being, kids being able to consent at 18. You missed the entire point, kids are still learning regardless of how they learn. For example, just because kids learn differently in math, doesn’t mean that all of them don’t pass the school year.

(With the test you’re basically leaving what they previously learned arbitrary while trying to put a roadblock in the middle so they don’t have any time to actually learn it.)

Also, it’s really dangerous for a really small kid to give birth. So it’s wrong to sleep with them, even if they could consent. It’s really dangerous for them to give birth, because them and the baby can die in the process.

There bodies aren’t even developed enough let alone their minds. Consent isn’t “all that matters”.

You’re acting like the AOC system has failed people, when it reality it’s benefited people.

**Age of consent system isn’t broken but actually beneficial/Your test makes no sense, it’s counterproductive, and will run society into the ground:

Look. The age of consent system isn’t broken or is it counterproductive, however your test and individual evaluation is because it is a very, very, inaccurate and arbitrary test that was put together by someone who fundamentally just isn’t smart enough and too lazy to come up with a solution to benefit everyone. For example, if you let soldiers out into a field with full equipment and trained them will every martial art. How is it the teachers fault if they die in battle? That makes no sense.

In this situation, it would actually be your fault if children failed the test, which they ultimately will, because you don’t want to provide their right to a learning system so that they’re prepared for the test. Therefore your test is stripping them of their human rights, because you are, ironically, leaving their beforehand experience to be completely arbitrary. And that is only one example of how your test is fundamentally a giant failure, I can actually list plenty more problems even if your test had a learning system behind it.

The test will ultimately be ran and supervised by someone who lacks the intelligence to provide an environment in which children will succeed, because they’re “for” something that they half-assed and completely made up in their head with little to no thought or care. Your test/individual estimation isn’t flexible, and there’s no such thing as a flexible test that is based on a certain amount of intelligence with right or wrong answers, instead of being flexible your test just leaves the amount of intelligence beforehand openly and completely arbitrary. That is being inflexible. The fact that you don’t “think” the law should be strict and inflexible about a topic so crucial simply means that you do not care. If someone is taught something and they don’t learn, then it is their fault.

Honestly, I don’t think the test is redundant, that would imply that it’s useless. It’s worse than useless, because it strips away the rights of both children AND adults. It’s more that the logic that makes up your overall outlook of this topic is redundant and the system you made up is proof of that in itself. Let me explain:

The age of consent law isn’t inaccurate or arbitrary, that is just a statement you’re making without any evidence. It is proven that minors below 18 are notoriously abused more than adults pretty much all the time so it makes no sense to say that the AOC law is wrong. It makes no sense to say that the estimation of kids having already learned by the time they are 18 is just a mere assumption. You’re going by the logic that you made up in your head but it doesn’t correspond to reality, so the law shouldn’t be changed according to your logic because you are wrong. Deductive and inductive reasoning that is devoid of logic doesn’t count as logical reasoning. That’s the fundamental reason why when you actually try to bring up real evidence it’s always factually incorrect.

The system isn’t broken, you’re just saying that it is despite not having actual evidence of it screwing people over, your logic and the test you made up will fundamentally screw people over by contrast. Having an evaluation with no system behind it so kids can easily be prevented from taking it or being forced to take it due to legal guardians will ultimately strip many kids from the chance of ever being able to legally consent. Or having that put on them way too early. There’s also nothing in place to prepare them for it beforehand. Contrary to the AOC law, this evaluation you want to put in place is ultimately against the human rights of any child. Not to mention you never even specified how it even works, you basically just said “they should take a test that should solve all our problems” while being completely vague without any details. Claiming that adults are “underestimating them” when they call out your “test” proves that you have no idea of how education works and you can’t even help them succeed.

You don’t know what arbitrary means, because the AOC law has been adjusted and put in place for centuries in order to protect children, you pull a fixed half-assed system out of thin air because of your complete misunderstanding of how the law works and claim it will fix everything while disregarding how it will actually work or how the system will adjust, that is the exact definition of arbitrary. By giving children an arbitrary test you are thrusting a responsibility on them that they are not ready for. Your test only arises and worsens problems that were already present, it’s counterproductive and dangerous.

For example, groomers don’t even have to wait for children to get older and they don’t have a time space where the child can actually break away from them before they are too old, the test has the same questions and subject matter so groomers can literally help them cheat despite them not even being ready. Ironically you’re leaving outsiders to decide if a kid can consent despite that not being your intentions, which means you don’t know what you’re doing or what you’re even talking about.

They won’t prove me wrong by “passing” because your system ensures they won’t in itself. You’re trying to equate something that determines an ability to something akin to an IQ test, that line of reasoning doesn’t work.

You don’t have the right to take away a child’s freedom or ruin their lives, especially not for something so retarded. I’m not for an arbitrary, inaccurate, and completely made up test, but for the system that we already have that has no legitimate downsides. It makes no sense that you’re for something that was never fleshed out, for something so half-assed, for something so inaccurate, for something that won’t even exist because of those reasons.

You’re essentially discriminating against children for no reason while using “you’re just underestimating them” whenever someone calls you out on it despite of how dangerous it is, just so you can no avoid all accountability. Preventing such a system isn’t discriminating against children, but advocating it is. You’re pretty much trying to integrate a system in o ur society that will ultimately fail children and adults.

You would also ruin relationships that have been alive for centuries because everybody past 18 wouldn’t legally be able to consent because of some arbitrary test some guy put in place. People would obviously protest to that nonsense and you can’t FORCE them to take part in a test or system that they don’t need. The age of consent law beforehand left their relationship completely fine but you would strip away their basic human rights for no reason.

I’d go as far as to say that it’s a personal violation against me, my values, and my pride because in the eyes of your system I apparently can’t consent because I haven’t taken some arbitrary test, and that I have to conform to such a broken system. Call me selfish, but I’m definitely not for an “individual evaluation” that would basically hinder the relationship that me and my partner have maintained. It’s basically to protect individuals while screwing individuals over, it’s an idiotic and counterproductive system that doesn’t help anyone. You’re essentially doing what you’ve claimed that consent law was doing; you’re basically assuming and making a generalization that everyone that hasn’t taken the test can’t consent. However, the consent law actually has proof and statistics to backup it’s broad generalization, and even that law is incredibly lenient because minors who haven’t even reached 18 can be with each other.

Adults past 18 who can consent, but are not able to due to an arbitrary an inaccurate test, is stripping us of our human rights.

————————————

Don’t pretend like you care about the human rights of children. All your arguments are centered around the rationale that adults shouldn’t get in trouble for trying to be with children. Because you’re predominantly saying that the child (the victim in this situation) “knows what they’re doing”, so the adult is without fault. And that the adult not being able to control themselves or their desires automatically means that they should never be held accountable for their actions. You can’t deny this, because you’re trying to pass them as “facts” when they are just excuses.

The only kids you can argue can consent are “gifted kids”, but that doesn’t even mean that they’re stripped of their human rights of protection, nor does that mean excelling academics means that they can consent to sexual relations or a relationship. So actually you can’t even argue that much.

You literally made this up as you went along. I’m not using “literally” as in a hyperbole, you made this up as this thread went on. You basically formed the idea, thought about it a little bit more, then ran with it as if that’s what you’ve been saying this entire time. You’re trying to act as if it will revolutionize or fix society when it will actually damage us, while simultaneously pretending that it somehow validates everything you’ve been saying when it actually contradicts it.

The reason you keep using “arbitrary” is because your argument in itself is devoid of reasons as to why it doesn’t work. The reason you leave your test ambiguous, arbitrary, and “flexible” is because it is inaccurate and arbitrary in itself.

Your test doesn’t just have “downsides”, it’s a giant mess and collapses into itself. There is no benefits.

Your test neither corresponds to reality like the AOC law does, nor does it not correspond to reality. That’s because it isn’t based off of any research or knowledge, but it’s contents and details are left completely obscure.

You don’t realize that by saying that children’s rights are being taken away for not being allowed to do something, you’re also saying that children not being able to vote, drive, buy a gun, or drink is also against their rights. It’s unrealistic and really dumb. Saying someone’s human rights are being violated for not being able to do something, is like saying your right to bear arms is being violated for not being table to take a firearm to a festival. That’s not how human rights work.

Yes, children are children until they are 18. I know, it’s shocking, huh? Regardless if you genuinely convinced yourself and the child that they can consent, it is still within their rights to be protected.

It’s children’s rights to be protected because they are children. Them being children in itself means that they are entitled to those rights. You do not have the right to take that away from them because it suits you.

The law is also obligated to prevent vulnerable people, since kids are impressionable and notoriously susceptible to abuse, it is within their right to be protected. That fact alone disproves you and you can’t deny it.

Sleeping with a child is wrong and it counts as statutory “grape”, therefore not being able to do that isn’t a violation of an adult’s human rights. Unless you wanted to make it so where people didn’t need to consent to sleep with each other. You keep saying that adults aren’t able to consent and that it’s an issue, but there is no evidence for that, therefore it is just a statement/excuse and nothing more.

Just a lesson on what children’s rights ACTUALLY are. The fact that I have to lay it all out for you, and you couldn’t even do that for yourself, proves that you truly don’t have any idea about what you’re talking about or the severity of the narrative you’re trying to push.

Do you even know what consent is?! It’s not a responsibly, it’s an ability. You’re basically giving kids an obligatory responsibility or else they can’t even be in a relationship, even when they are already adults.

You also don’t understand that being with a less matured adult is not the equivalent of being with a child, it’s pretty stupid and insane how you confuse the two.

Looking for maturity in a child/kid is an oxymoron in itself.

You do realize that a test isn’t going to stop people from trying to get with others who cannot consent, right? An arbitrary test/individual evaluation actually makes it easier for that to happen.

You against an age system that protects the rights of children, by saying that we don’t have the right to do that? The AOC law is 18 because people under that age are notorious for being liable to abuse, we’re not just “deciding” it.

You don’t get to decide if kids can consent or not, because you aren’t qualified to determine anything.

Also, there was never a consent test on this topic for disabled people. That’s a lie.

The law “not applying” to certain adults doesn’t make sense because the consent of a minor doesn’t vary on what the adult’s intentions are, because intentions don’t apply or correspond to the reality of minors not being able to consent. So the law does make sense for them.

You do realize that when you have an opinion on something it has to actually be supported by evidence, logic, and reasoning right? You should really stop assuming things and making statements about topics you don’t know anything about.

The solution for this, is to make sex education legal for children in middle school or high school, that way they are prepared by the time they are 18. Teach them how to consent, how to avoid creepy adults, how to prevent pregnancy, etc.

It isn’t purely “I want to have sex”, or “I want to be with you”, that we consider when talking about consent, there are many other factors. That’s why you think it’s easy to determine it, because you lack a broad understanding. If it was purely that, then we wouldn’t even allow kids to be with other kids, but generally kids can’t consent. Even kids wanting to engage in that activity together is entirely discouraged.

A test that applies to kids and adults of ALL ages implies that everybody in America, in a relationship or not, will have to take it to be within “their rights”. Adding a learning system to the test would also mean that everybody would basically have to be put back in school.

An actual issue with the government and the real stupid thing in our system is that they refuse to teach kids about important topics. Cultural exception, racism, topics involving LGBT, sex education, etc.

Many people would have benefited from having knowledge about these topics, especially sex education and consent seeing as how many kids are wronged, from not properly being taught. Hell, sexual abuse of minors even happens between parents and their children, that’s why we shouldn’t even leave those topics for parents to teach their kids.

I’d also make dating minors illegal. It’s essentially the same as grooming if you’re waiting for the kid to turn 18 before sleeping with them.

And child marriage should be illegal too, because that is a violation of their human rights.

**There’s nothing wrong with society/You don’t know how the world works/You don’t know what love is, what it means, how it’s found/You’re the biased one/All the points you’ve brought up were excuses and nothing more; they weren’t facts, etc:

If you are being held to an expectation that is purely relative to how society raises people, and fully applies to you, then how is that an insult to your pride? That makes no sense.

Also, that’s not how pride works. The very concept of pride revolves around being proud of expectations and achievements. Your pride is completely misplaced to begin with.

The is problem is that a law that’s put in place in order to protect the human rights of vulnerable people fundamentally wounds your ego for no reason, that’s it.

We live in a society. There is always a “should”:

-The consent law “is” 18, therefore kids “should” be able to consent by 18.

-There “is” a problem of children being abused, therefore the law “should” be preventing adults from violating the safety of children.

If you fundamentally misunderstood this pattern of reasoning, then you don’t understand how the world works.

You’re not mature enough to understand love.

You do realize that people CAN choose who they love, right? “Deciding who you want to be with” and “choosing who you love” are literally the same exact thing. You confuse the two but they are actually the same. That’s like confusing 2+2 with 2x2. So it doesn’t make sense to say that you can do one and not the other. Choosing to be romantic and emotionally invest your time to build a relationship is literally choosing who you love, anyone who’s trying to say otherwise hasn’t even been in a loving relationship to know that.

Finding or looking for someone with an ability that they should supposedly have will be an inevitability so long as there’s a consent law, which there should be. Finding someone who can consent isn’t “convenient” it’s the moral, ethical, and legal thing to do regardless of how much suppressing your “love” hurts your feelings which is precisely why it isn’t relevant. You’re basically saying nobody should have self control. Ironically, not choosing the right person is actually the toxic and convenient “solution”.

You’re trying to perpetuate the idea that people can choose who they want to be with and that we can’t all the same, which doesn’t really work and makes no sense.

Regardless if you can literally choose what you’re attracted to, everybody who can consent has the choice to emotionally invest in a person. Your idea of love is messed up dude because it’s the mindset of actual offenders and people with no self control who act on personal desires. You would want to be with someone because they are able to mutually consent with you, not because being with someone less mature is more convenient and easier for you.

And to make it even worse you don’t even know how love works, what love means, or what love is. If you did you would know that looking for love is how people have fallen in love since forever and that you can choose who you love. These are fundamentals if you ever want to be in a relationship. It’s like you still believe in “love at first sight”, and “love conquers all”. The fact of the matter is that love actually takes time and you have to look for it. That’s how falling in love works, you should go do that.

“I can’t control who I love” That makes absolutely no sense and that’s not how it works. That is especially dangerous because it’s the mindset of both abuse victims AND abusers. It’s also an excuse used by people who want to be judged for their intentions rather than any heinous crime they did against the person they supposedly “love”.

“If a child loves them back they aren’t being manipulated” - There is everything wrong with that statement. You’re an idiot if you genuinely think that if a child loves someone that they aren’t being manipulated, it is a known fact that loved ones are one the main causes of abuse through bonds, let alone some adult who so happens to “love” them. No one is going to get manipulated by someone they don’t like. Christ, that is such a scummy way of thinking. If you don’t understand this then you genuinely don’t understand how ANY kind of love works.

You do realize that preaching a fixed, opinionated definition of love while simultaneously misunderstanding it means you aren’t emotionally mature in the slightest, right?

Relationships aren’t situational. For two people to love each other there must be mutual power and mutual consent. That is nonexistent with an adult and a child.

All of your points are used to push a biased narrative, all the way down to how you think intentions and love works.

For example, the reason you brung up the point that intentions matter is because you don’t want an adult to be held responsible if they “accidentally” do something with a child that cannot consent.

The reason you think people cannot choose who they love is because you don’t want adults to be decent people by choosing to be with other adults that can actually consent with them. What you are, (or what you were saying), are not facts, they are excuses.

The reason you think that it’s easy to determine consent is because you want it to be convenient for adults to take advantage of a child if they think the child is “ready”.

The reason you think that choosing who you want to be with is easy and “level 1 of maturity”, is because you think adults should get the excuse of certain kids they manipulate being “mature for their age”.

I can’t “poke holes” in your logic because it’s practically a 360 circle. A 360 circle is the perfect analogy for your logic because it’s basically an outer shell with no substance in the middle. The outer shell is your statements, but in the middle it doesn’t actually have any substance within itself. It’s logic that surrounds nothing, that in itself proves that your logical reasoning is completely missing the logical part. The concepts that make up your arguments make no sense.

[thosearentcrimes]

Sometimes someone will say something that's basically fundamentally impossible to prove. It's a claim that you can provide arbitrary amounts of more or less convincing evidence for, but by the nature of the claim, proof just can't show up, and yet the claim is sufficiently important that it cannot be ignored. Frequently, statements about secret beliefs or intentions fall under this category. If I claim someone believes something or intended some result of their actions, I can hardly be proven wrong (I can always claim that person is lying) but likewise I can never be proven right (they can always lie).

Some Scott "Scott Alexander" Alexander Siskind fans thought this is what was going to happen with his ties to the neoreactionary movement, when he took his blog down because the New York Times was writing an article about him. Critics had thought and said for a long time that he was trying to launder reactionary ideas and racism through his blog posts, that he was dogwhistling to the right-wing elements of his audience while retaining plausible deniability for his other readers who he was trying to convert. In the event, the article barely even hints at this criticism, but that was enough to irritate a fanbase already primed to melt down. Conveniently for those fans, since the claims in question are about the intentions and beliefs of a man who by definition would seek to keep those intentions and beliefs secret, they could literally never be proven wrong.

Unless. What if Scott had written a lengthy email almost a decade ago, in which he had declared that the neoreactionaries are right about "HBD", that is, that he was a racist, believing in the superiority of some races over others? That he had been actively hiding that fact from both the general public and his own audience? That he agreed on various other things (such as correct interpretation of WW2, and crime/criminal justice) with the neoreactionaries? What if he had said that his intention with his writings was to raise his own profile by way of provocation, to spread neoreactionary ideas he agrees with (recall that those include race, WW2, and crime) to as wide an audience as possible, and to raise the profile of and personally befriend neoreactionaries. Enter Topher Brennan, with the email in question.

An interesting side note about the email is that basically every public figure in the Rationalist space assumed it was real, even though Scott hadn't commented on it publicly. Was it because of some sort of private warning that the email was real and they should avoid the embarrassment of denying it? Was it because many of them were in fact familiar with his secret views and intentions, and as such not surprised he had brought them up with others in private? It is a mystery that requires an explanation. If it was absurd and evil to insinuate (not even claim, just possibly somewhat imply) that Scott was racist or overly friendly to racists, then surely emails in which he declares himself to be racist and friendly to racists would be quite literally incredible to them, no?

In any case, what I think is more important is what happened to the unprovable claim. As far as I can tell, what happened is that everyone determined that since the claim was clearly unprovable, it was as good as disproved, and could safely be considered basically false or at least nonsense (if this seems like uncharacteristically loose reasoning, recall that some of the thought leaders involved almost certainly already privately knew the claim was true). Since the claim was false, the revelation of that exact form of proof whose impossibility had been accepted as a premise was irrelevant. The email could be cheerfully ignored (well, not entirely ignored, some retribution for the offense would be in order) because we already knew the thing it's trying to prove is false, because the proof that is now being offered cannot really exist, even though nobody doubts that the proof is genuine. It seems to be a sort of reasoning cul-de-sac.

This event was also a specific manifestation of an interesting paradox around racism. Racism is considered to be so obviously horrific that accusing someone of it is a monstrous injury. However, if that racism is proven, not only is that supposed universal horror often in remarkably short supply, the accuser is generally not forgiven for the monstrous injury they have inflicted. In practice, it seems that accusing a racist of racism is quite frequently less acceptable than racism. Curious, isn't it? The assertion that racism is totally unacceptable working to shield racism.

#Scott “Scott Alexander” Alexander Siskind

[asunnycoffee]

I dunno how why I can't send the message but I do wanna know, why are you supporting lily? Lily orchard? Especially on how she used to encourage sexual asks on Tumblr, yk, a place where it's a majority of teenagers would go to and her content on YouTube is at the most will be of teenagers? (I'm not saying she's a predator, I'm saying she's being irresponsible with her audience, probably full of minors) Not to mention so much messed up stuff she did, I can show you proof by tagging if you answer this ask. With all of what I found on Tumblr about her, her being anti catradora is just the most ironic shit I have witness.

I support Lily because I enjoy her content and find her to be a good, likable person. She’s cool, so is Mikaila. But okay, I’ll tell you this;

She marks those asks as NSFW. She is not responsible for minors that come across NSFW asks. Minors should be blocking that tag in the first place(coming from someone that followed her as a minor, even I stumbled across a few NSFW posts but had the brain to block the tag or just outright ignore the posts themselves because she states before posting them “hey, gonna have NSFW asks on for a bit”.

If the only source of her being a bad person is sexual conversation, you know, the things teens talk about all the damn time(plus Lily specifically marked her posts as NSFW, therefor teens should know to back the fuck off because it’s an adult space), then I don’t classify that as even a remotely valid argument.

But what evidence do you have(sincerely asking)? Is it just the stuff I’ve already seen that’s been disproved or is it actually reliable proof?

[magic-is-something-we-create]

Hey, friend! Feels like it's been a bit (though it may be more so on my end than yours). Care to elaborate on Paragons for a moment for me? (Long post appreciated but not required) Happy Worldbuilding Wednesday!

Hi!!! It has been a bit!!! I haven’t done WBW in months, I’m pumped to be doing it again!!!

Paragons are a concept I’ve had in my head for a while that I’ve only just been able to start diving into in actual writing!!

For a little context/refresher on some Lore™: Flexing is a form of hysterical strength, but with magic, and it’s often fatal and unanimously traumatizing; Prophecy is a thing that used to happen when people Flexed in the Olden Days, and it basically means one Goddess or another speaks to the person Flexing to comfort/advise them--and if one was determined, it could be repeatedly and deliberately invoked to get information that’s more like the traditional prophecies of the fantasy genre.

Paragons are not always Prophets. Prophets are not always Paragons.

But it’s easier to tell who is actually a Paragon if they’re also a Prophet, rather than someone claiming to be a Paragon for influence.

Paragons are basically people who embody the ideals of a Goddess to an extent that most others don’t. They’re completely devoted to these concepts, these necessities of life, regardless of what their religion says about those things or Goddesses, and tend to make those concepts Their Whole Thing. It can be a temporary state, there’s nothing keeping someone from being a Paragon for a while, but most often it’s people who are dedicated to the point of obsession for their whole life.

But, most importantly, this devotion can not be for the express purpose of becoming a Paragon.

You cannot become a Paragon intentionally.

There can be multiple Paragons for each Goddess; there always are, there always have been, because there are so many people dedicated to the things the Goddesses hold dear. In-world, it’s generally believed that there’s one for each People, i.e. one Ehlf, one Dwarf, one Human, etc., but that’s not actually a limitation from a meta standpoint. It’s just very hard to prove that one is a Paragon if they don’t have some evidence that’s outwardly presentable to others, and that only really happens if they’re also a Prophet.

(This is because being a Prophet strengthens the connection further, allows for two-way devotion and communication between a Paragon and their Goddess. Prophetic Paragons will sometimes be able to take on a visual likeness to their Goddess in defining moments, and the scar left by their Prophecy will become visible; non-Prophetic Paragons are just regular people living their life by their ideals.)

So because Flexing in itself is rare, and Prophecy has been (supposedly) nonexistent for a millennium (and was tied to Flexing anyway), it’s almost impossible to prove whether you’re a Paragon or not without, like, a council of approval from those who know the Goddesses and their domains really well who also all trust and believe you. Prophetic Paragons were just the minuscule overlap between two already-tiny groups, and thus there were never enough to disprove the idea that there’s only one per People.

A final fun fact about them, though, is that in the religious hierarchy that was around when Prophecy was a thing, one had to be a Prophetic Paragon to become a Highpriestess! It was supposed to be a sort of reassurance that the people running religious practice were in tune with the Goddesses’ desires, but because Paragon isn’t a permanent state of being, there were absolutely Highpriestesses who butchered the words and ideals of the Goddesses during their reign. This idea is very relevant to the plotline of the Eternals, Tieling specifically, and it’s been super fun to explore!!

#thank u for the chance to ramble!!!! i have Brainrot about paragons rn #i just......... i love how the idea of them has changed from where it started #a&a #wbw #ehlverse #talking with: poore-choice-of-words

[filipinoizukuu]

hello mr simp do you have any thoughts on the leeks 👀

FIRST OF ALL. THEY CAME SO FUCKING EARLY??? BRO I WAS ASLEEP

SECOND OF ALL

holy SHIT YALL

Okay, it's no secret that I'm an All Might stan. I LOVE All Might. Very very much. Not just as a simp, but genuinely, I enjoy his character SO MUCH.

--And unlike what some people may think, I'm not totally blind to his flaws. I know he sucks as a mentor and that he's done way more harm to Deku than good. He's.... not perfect. in every sense of the word. The whole point of AM's character is that he is a DEEPLY FLAWED individual�� but at the end of the day, still good.

This new chapter gave me SOOO many new feelings. I'm not gonna lie to y'all and say I was a Stain apologist beforehand because I wasn't. I disliked Stain to a certain degree, but I also knew he was morally grey enough that I was able to still quite appreciate him as a character. This chapter was about EVERYTHING to me because I honestly did NOT expect Hori to go in this direction and for things to happen the way they did. It was too good to be true! Too fanfic-y! The disbelief I felt when I read what happened was on par with when Bakugou and Deku had that apology and kinda-hug in the rain!

But this disbelief is not because it was a bad thing.

I think the writing in Chapter 326 is phenomenal. The moment that All Might was really beginning to lose hope in not just himself as a hero, but himself as a PERSON... we finally hear the opinion of someone who would abso-fucking-LUTELY make or break the last of his spirit.

Stain is, as much as his views are pretty agreeable and his label is that of a vigilante, still a pretty shitty guy. He's tried to kill literal kids who got in his way, even if said kids made pretty dumb decisions. AM hearing what he has to say is absolutely mind-boggling to him because he knows all of that. He knows Stain is a shitty person and that his worldview is perhaps terribly skewed. He knows Stain has spent a hot minute frying his brains down in Tartarus and isn't good at making judgment calls. Knows that for all intents and purposes, Stain's opinions are not to be trusted.

But the thing is... Toshinori also knows that Stain, regardless of the soundness of his mind, is telling the truth.

Regardless of how fucked-in-the-head Stain is, we as readers are able to acknowledge that he isn't blinded by hero worship. Sure, he's bitter, cynical, and quite the absolutist--but Stain is still clear-headed enough to be able to see AM's flaws for what they are and accept them, ultimately proving to Toshinori that the power of All Might was never his own but rather the legacy that he inspired.

The society MHA takes place in is flawed. We all know this. Heroes, as a concept, had been corrupted into being purely about good and evil. Purely winning fights for money or fame or the abstract concept of victory (coughs Endeavor and the no.1 spot coughs), making heroism as we know it about flashiness and power instead of mercy and the desire to help others.

All Might symbolizes the ideal version of the Hero Society. He represents doing the best you can. Being a hero until you reach your limits, and then going even past that. He symbolizes pure intention and the desire to be a hero not for material gains but because of the pure want to make society a better and safer place. Stain refers to Kamino Ward and the statue as a "holy land" because he believes that through and through, AM's only had the purest of intentions and morals. To him, Toshinori was like a deity that had no fault in making society what it was in the present because that accountability fell on the generations of heroes that failed to fulfill his legacy.

The point being, Stain understood that All Might was fundamentally not about 'being there' for everyone 24/7, but rather the message his presence had sent.

All Might's monologue at the beginning of the chapter essentially boiled down to the ideas that:

A. He regrets not being there properly for Deku

B. His image was a delusion that ultimately led to the downfall of hero society.

To break this down, his problem with Deku is his inability to be a competent mentor. It shows that he has led him down dangerous and horrible paths (Deku's stubbornness to do things by himself and his 'dark' arc post-war), and is unable to bring him back into the light even if he tries. It was only when Class 1-A had intervened that they were able to get Deku to rest and let people tag along, after all, which is why Toshinori was far too embarrassed to follow him into UA's walls even after everyone had come out with umbrellas.

Stain disproves this in two ways.

First, he says that it was never about All Might's ability to actually be there for people. The whole point of what inspired Deku to be the inherently good-hearted "true hero" he is today is because of the values that AM's brand had instilled in him as a child. AM's biggest positive impacts came from behind the screen where he was used as the proof that true heroes can and do exist. Deku does want to be exactly like All Might, yes, which is why we see Toshinori leading him down the same path that he walked--but the underlying message of this is that the very first thing All Might gave him even before OfA was the courage to help fix society.

I do believe Deku is an innately compassionate person. Most people in the series are. However, what makes All Might's smile so uniquely impactful to what it did to Hero Society is the way it gave people courage to help people. Less hesitation. Less bystander syndromes. The ability to move without thinking. Because you can feel the want to help a person, but the courage to be nosey and actually do it? That's portrayed as something AM's image teaches people.

The second way he disproves AM's insecurity of dragging Deku down is that he makes it clear that this pain is somewhat of a necessity in reforming society. He says, interestingly enough, that this is but the 'middle process' in reforming society. This spills over to how he addresses Problem B, but what Stain is essentially saying here is that this sort of brutality and isolation that Izuku faces is impermanent. A phase. It implies that even if Deku is struggling and Toshinori is unable to help him, it is something that needs to happen before they re-realize the ideal heroes All Might's image is meant to create.

The second problem in regards to how All Might feels about current society (how it's collapsing because of him, etc. etc.) is more interestingly addressed. There are many things that Stain says--like how Toshinori doesn't need to actually be the one to fix society with his bare hands. The current society is not his fault because of the fact that it is not finished developing. I'm not sure if I can go so far as to say that Stain means this in the sense of the Scorched Earth method of tearing everything down to build it back up better-- but I can say that Stain still has faith in society to rebuild after this period of chaos.

This rebuilding starts with the old generation of heroes correcting what they messed up (i.e. Endeavor v Dabi) and more importantly, paving the way for a better generation of heroes that was inspired by All Might's image. Heroes that are led by people like Deku, who is defined by his proclivity to help without thinking. The violent deconstruction of society is about exposing society to the raw truth of All Might's image that not everybody can be as strong as him-- which is why we have to take care of each other.

When the lady comes in to remove the sign and start cleaning the statue, it's symbolic. It's a clear metaphor that the past few chapters are the turning point for society as a whole, and how people are starting to remember what real heroism is. From the distrust that was seeded in society ever since LoV had surfaced, we are seeing that trust being returned TEN-FOLD now that people can see not only the mask of a hero's smile, but also the person underneath.

I think it's some really neat symbolism here too about how Deku, who's metal mouth guard was literally all about representing All Might's smile, is shed.

This is hero society dropping their masks. Letting people see them for as they are. Toshinori revisiting the statue in this form makes all the more impact because he shed his mask ages ago during the Kamino Bust, so this is him coming face to face with the image he's created and seeing the differences between them, and how his image continues to live on even after he's almost completely Quirkless. The lady cleaning the All Might statue shows off the fact that things can be repaired again--that society can be clean (hehe stain pun) again.

It's interesting to me here how Stain offers the information from Tartarus.

He doesn't care anymore about his life. It's evident. He disagrees with what the LoV is doing, but believes enough in Deku to think that it's time for him to retire the mantle of 'Stain'. Unless this is another test, it's very odd for me to hear that Stain is offering a blade and his life to someone he isn't even sure is All Might.

But the impact of this action reads loud and clear.

This is Stain taking pity on All Might. This is him realizing that All Might too is a person behind the hero. That Toshinori Yagi is incapable of doing anything past the image he had already created. By offering that knife and information on Tartarus, Stain is giving control back to Toshinori. He is giving AM the chance to do something big again to help society's reconstruction. To be a part of the revolution that he so badly deserves to see. That knife is essentially an exit ticket from the sidelines, and one last chance for All Might to be able to see what his image has done for people.

I personally think that the main reason Stain is willing to die then and there by Toshinori's hand, despite not being sure that he is All Might to begin with, is because of the final impact it creates that it isn't about Toshinori Yagi's true power as a person, but the image of All Might. It is because he looks like the symbol of peace, that Stain (the literal HERO KILLER) feels comfortable laying his life in his hands and giving away valuable information.

If that isn't a great testament to the power of AM's image, I don't know WHAT is.

I guess all I have to say is I absolutely love what Stain did in this chapter. Everything felt so incredibly symbolic and emotional and as someone who absolutely ADORES All Might and what he stands for in the story, this felt like a cool balm after seeing Deku tragically reject his bento box a good few chapters ago. I have a few more opinions about symbolism, and how I think Deku's generation of heroes is going to stray from the old gen, but I think that's a discussion for another time.

Thanks for reading 'til the end!

#asks #anon #bnha meta #mha meta #all might #toshinori yagi #yagi toshinori #stain #mha stain #mha #bnha #my hero academia #boku no hero academia #mha spoilers #bnha spoilers #mha 326 #bnha 326