Youtube comments of (@krasmasov6852).
-
263
-
122
-
72
-
37
-
36
-
33
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DarthZ01 Right, but why in the world would she do that?
And no, it's not. The story you mentioned is about a book that was in a HIGH SCHOOL library and wasn't taught in class. And while the book was written for adults, it does contain a lot of content that would be useful for teenagers, especially those who feel ostracized for their gender identity. There needs to be less shame around the notion of sex in general. Again, among teenagers, not elementary school kids. And even then, more to prepare them for adulthood and address the feelings they may be feeling than to encourage them to have sex and shit.
In high school, I read more explicit stuff. A Mercy by Toni Morrison was assigned reading when I was a junior. I liked it, so I sought out more of her work. Read The Bluest Eye. Later found out it's one of the most banned books in the country. How it slipped through to land in my Georgia school's library I don't know, but I'm glad it did.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mathildeyoung1823 No, I literally just said the opposite. I said feel free to give personhood to a fetus if you like. Even if I grant that a fetus is a person, abortion is still okay.
I do not care about the constitution. I care about our actual innate human rights, not what a government recognizes. Rights are not the government's to grant. They are the government's to acknowledge. When they fail to acknowledge them, then we've got a problem.
If you assign personhood to a fetus (which I've already allowed you to do for the sake of argument), they would have bodily autonomy, yes. Let's ask them what they want. Oh wait, they can't exercise their bodily autonomy. So clearly that's not being violated. And the right to life, like all other rights, are limited to affecting the rights of others. Therefore, no one's right to life, fetus or fully grown human, can override someone else's right to bodily autonomy. The fetus does not have a special exception to this with it's right to life, so that doesn't apply here. So it's actually one right vs zero rights. ONE > ZERO. Therefore, abortion needs to be legal in all circumstances with the sole exception of a pregnant person not wanting one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrFlintlock7 I'm talking solely about the past 10 years, remember? Compare that to all of communism throughout history. Capitalism STILL is deadlier. Also, I dont think you know what axis of evil means. Who are you referring to? The modern axis of evil is the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. In WW2, it was Italy, Germany, and Japan. According to Bush's braindead speech, it was Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. None of those are communist, but I already explained why what you're looking for here is flawed to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IamAWESOME3980 No, it's very much addressing the core of the issue. It literally ends the pregnancy. Problem solved. Done. But yes, it does have to happen after the fact if my understanding of linear time is correct. So what?
Eh. It's a bit silly to assign personhood to a fetus, much less a zygote or whatever, but even if you do, the alternative is the price of losing bodily autonomy. No one's right to life can override the bodily autonomy of another.
Getting an abortion is taking responsibility. Get out of jail free cards are good and helpful. A possible consequence of slipping with a knife while making dinner is losing a finger. But hey, if you get to the hospital fast enough, they may be able to reattach it. Get out of jail free card. You get to keep your finger despite cutting it off because you weren't chopping food safely. Surely you don't think that's a bad thing, do you? You wouldn't demand that person "take responsibility" and live with nine fingers, right?
Uh no, what? I thought you were implying that there's no necessity to have sex but there is a necessity to drive to work, so I changed it to something that isn't necessary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freraag247 Nah, women can get that strong if they work at it. Abby's physique is a manifestation of her obsession with revenge. This is reinforced in the aquarium flashback. Owen wanted to spend time with her, but Abby kept saying how she needed to go to training. This was what ended their relationship in the first place, which comes back later in the story when Abby and Owen both realize that revenge wasn't worth sacrificing their relationship for. That's how it works thematically.
Practically speaking, Abby is favored by Isaac. Even after she's already eaten, Isaac tells her to get something to eat again. She also lives a short walk away from a state of the art gym facility that was originally designed for a professional football team. You can also see the exercise schedule she has, which includes plenty of days of rest too. A woman who works at building her strength can be much stronger than most men, though the strongest man is going to be physically stronger than the strongest woman. The vast majority of people, though, never come close to peak human strength, so anyone who really works at it will be at an advantage regardless of sex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pedro2NR I'm using both like any sane person. Leaving emotions out of it entirely just makes you heartless. You're using emotions too, you know. Outside of the womb, babies aren't using anyone's body to survive, so it's not a matter of bodily autonomy. And no, neglecting a baby obviously isn't right. You're trying so hard to point out a contradiction, but it's just not working. Like I already said, an already born baby isn't dependent on someone else's body to survive. They are dependent on other people, but not the use of their bodies. You understand the difference, right?
It does not matter. It is completely irrelevant. My feet weren't designed to wear shoes, but I'm still going to wear them when I walk outside. The natural function of my partner's eyes makes things blurry, but they're still going to wear glasses. The function of a uterus isn't a choice, but how you use it is. You're essentially arguing that a person with a uterus should not be allowed to choose to never have children, and that's obviously absurd. Why are you so determined to give preborn extra rights? No one else has the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily autonomy. To have this "empathy for preborn," you'd have to lack it for people who can get pregnant, and you clearly do since you're so committed to denying them their basic human rights. I follow my own moral standards, of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@biologicalengineoflove6851 Lmao why not? Fuck Joanne. Fuck Vaush. Just did it. Easy.
Lol holy shit the equivalent of the "I have a black friend" argument. Brilliant, dude. Truly the intellectual titan I'd expect from a Vaushite. Lol holy shit genocide apologeia and sexual harassment? You people don't live in reality at all.
Bro, what? That makes no sense. So I must necessarily take the side of the lesser evil regardless of what the lesser evil actually does? Can I take no side? Can I condemn them both? You should probably stop saying ironic misogyny. It's just misogyny. I'm not that big of a fan of Bo Burnham but him making fun of white women (a clear demographic) cannot be compared to all women (what Vaush railed against using common misogynistic tropes that Burnham didn't).
When did I simp for Joanne? What in the actual fuck are you talking about? You people are absolutely insane. This is why normal people hate debate bros, dude. Can you explain how being misogynistic is a valid critique of terfs? I don't know how my repeated statements of "fuck Joanne if she died the world would be a better place" is simping for her.
Shitposts qualify as rhetoric just as much as the cringe debates you worship. I'm telling you that from a rhetorical perspective, debates don't accomplish anything. They're fueled entirely by ego. Video essays are far more effective, but even that is still marginal. The truth is that the left doesn't depend on leftist content creators at all. How many people actually organize because of them? The best thing you can do is turn your friends into communists, read theory, and join a union. The Ken Ham Bill Nye debate didn't do shit. It was a colossal waste of time. You'll have the occasional awakening, but that could also be accomplished simply by better education and access to resources. Ken Ham's mind wasn't changed, was it? And shit, creationism in its inherent absurdity already kind of filters for people who are dumb anyways. Like purposeful mispelled words in Nigerian prince email scams. I'm not stifling discourse. I don't care about discourse. I'm making fun of you for putting so much value on internet debates. But thank you for proving that it really is all about ego by declaring a win at the end there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jefferson7097 Yes prepubescent. And they wouldn't, which is fine. It's not a decision they have to make. It's just making them aware of options to eliminate stigma around eventually realizing you're gay or trans or whatever.
Dope, glad to hear it.
Don't have any reason to know? But they already know. If they have a mom and a dad, they already know what heterosexuality is. They see Aladdin kiss Jasmine in a cartoon movie. How is this any different?
Why are you eliminating the T in LGBT? And what you're describing is about as far as it goes.
Lol no, that's not unreasonable. Pledging to an actual symbol of liberation is far more reasonable than pledging to the American flag every day. Why not? Those are words that kids are going to hear anyways.
No, not necessarily. I'm rejecting equating lgbtq teachers with groomers by default, which is exactly what's happening with all this.
I wouldn't be able to. In fact, I'm culturally conditioned to assume straight and cisgender by default. What does that matter here though? And yes, it is alright to be religious. I even think religion should be taught in schools, so kids have a better understanding of world religions. But similar to a situation in which a teacher is demanding kids be trans or gay, a teacher cannot endorse one religion over another and claim it's correct.
No, of course not. Nothing I said implies that. Other sources will teach that though. Kids parents for example may teach that being gay or trans is wrong. Teachers making the opposite clear is good for kids.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jefferson7097 1. Nope, I was asking. but surely you might understand why someone would think a LoTT fan would be a bigot, right?
2. The Civil War and the Revolutionary War didn't use the flag that kids are forced to pledge allegiance to in class. Maybe you should've paid more attention in history class. Not to mention that the American revolutionaries and the union army aren't exactly heroes. The revolutionaries founded a slave state, and the union didn't treat black folk up north all that great even long after the war. Companies coopting popular symbols is nothing new. They don't change the value of them. Rainbow capitalism is stolen valor.
3. That would only be the case if teachers were telling kids they SHOULD be gay, not merely telling them it's OKAY IF they're gay. And no, you don't have to make up reasons at all. Most kids are exposed to straight relationships every day. They deserve to know that other kinds of relationships are just as fine and normal.
4. Culture did. In fact, heterosexuality as a concept is relatively modern. Ancient cultures didn't really define their sexuality in that way. Not to mention sexual orientation isn't genetic, so your comment about reproduction doesn't make any kind of sense. You're talking as if only gay people can have gay children.
There's no context for the rest here, so I don't know what you're talking about. Based on your responses so far, though, you're probably wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@orilord7392 By oversaturated, you either mean that there were too many LGBTQ characters or that the LGBTQ characters were defined by that identifier. Judging by your claim that these characters make up a decent portion of the cast, I'm guessing you meant the former, but I'll address both possibilities just in case. And just a sidenote here, no one is rebranded as trans. A new character is revealed to be trans.
If you mean there are too many LGBTQ characters, there are three. That's it. Ellie, Dina, and Lev. Literally everyone else is cis and straight. That includes Joel, Tommy, Jesse, Abby, Owen, Manny, Mel, and Yara. Those are all the major characters, yeah? So that's an 8 to 3 ratio, and I'm leaving out plenty of side characters who are all cis and straight. What is the proper percentage that's acceptable in a story so it isn't pandering? Also, is a majority straight and cis cast pandering to non-LGBTQ people?
If you mean that the LGBTQ characters are defined by their orientation or gender identity, that's not the case either. Ellie obviously isn't, and I shouldn't have to explain that. Dina is defined by her ride or die attitude that later on comes to conflict with her strong motherly instincts. Lev is a loving yet naive little brother who's committed to seeing the best in good people who sometimes do bad things. He keeps Abby on her path of redemption when she nearly relapses. His gender identity certainly plays a role, and I know plenty of trans people would have preferred his character conflict to center around something irrelevant to his trans identity, but other trans people have stated their appreciation for the depiction of the struggle. I'm cis, so I don't really have an opinion on that one way or another. I have one question though. Are LGBTQ characters allowed to suffer from LGBTQ-related issues in a story in a scenario that isn't pandering to LGBTQ people?
You didn't answer my question. What should Joel have done instead?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@irphil47 Joel is the foundation for the game, and his relationship with Ellie is her primary driving factor up to the very end of Part 2. Joel's death was shocking, but it wasn't cheap shock. Cheap shock doesn't move the story along. Joel's death is the inciting event for the entire story. The dynamic of Joel and Ellie is explored in detail. Also, Jesse and Dina do a lot to develop Ellie. Sorry, but what are you even talking about? Abby wanted to save Lev and Yara as a way to alleviate her guilt over the atrocity she committed with Joel. She wants to do some good to make up for the bad. She literally explains this when Lev asks why she's helping. She says it's out of "guilt" and a need to "lighten the load." What you're thinking of is the scene when Yara asks why she's helping. That's when she responds, "You don't deserve this, but also, I needed to. I had to." But yes, her sparing Dina and Ellie at the theater is inconsistent. That's because it's the culmination of her character arc. You know, that thing characters go through in stories where they change over time. And Abby straight up panics briefly after killing her first WLF soldier.
No, the story is entirely character-driven. You don't seem to understand that characters change in a story, so I'm not sure you're in a position to say otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raybarry4307 Not sure Marx would be a big fan of what the Soviet Union eventually became, but Marxism has developed long past Marx anyways. An interesting topic that you unfortunately only brought up backhandedly.
The profit motive doesn't benefit all of society. It benefits the one profiting. Workers are exploited for that profit. The poor are restricted from getting whatever is being sold for profit. This is especially egrigious for items like insulin. And no, people work because work needs to be done. Someone's gotta harvest the food, manage the infrastructure, transport supplies, etc. And no, what you describe can be socialism, but socialism doesn't have to have that. What does a baker worry about? Whether or not they'll get their dough shipment in, whether or not their bread will rise properly, how soon their oven will need maintenance. This is true for the baker under capitalism and the baker under socialism. The difference is that the baker under socialism doesn't have the health and welfare of themselves and their family threatened if their baking fails. Everyone wants to keep themselves and those they care about happy and provided for. This is EASIER to do under socialism than it is capitalism because capitalism forces workers to only take a small fraction of what their labor is worth home. Meanwhile, those at the top hoard more wealth than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@katiek.8808 It comes from a few centuries before Marx. You're not understanding. Communism is a moneyless, classless, STATELESS society. If there's still a state, communism hasn't been achieved. The role of the state in establishing communism varies depending on who you ask. But you don't have to worry about money men paying their fair share when you just take their money regardless of what they want. You don't need a state to combat the bourgeousie. A one world government sure would be nice. Sounds dope.
Alrighty, let's go through these.
Property taxes don't prevent people from hoarding land and property they don't need to rent out to others. This land is not for public purpose but for profit on behalf of the owner rather than the people using it.
We don't. The ultra wealthy pay a far lesser percentage of their overall wealth than the average worker.
I do work for elder law firms sometimes as a copywriter. The mere existence of wills proves this wrong. We're not talking trinkets or items with sentimental value. Fat stacks of cash can be inherited.
Civil asset forfeiture in America targets the poor.
The federal reserve is a private/public hybrid system that allows for accountability to government, not the people with operations that are chartered as private corporations with employees that aren't considered civil servants.
Those are regulatory bodies, not owners of communication and transport.
This is obviously not the case. If anything, the opposite is true. Industries own the government, not the other way around.
Hell yeah sounds dope.
It's in progress? How so? This one isn't really relevant to the modern world anyways.
Hell yeah we do. Awesome. Though the quality of that education isn't exactly distributed equitably.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is all a big waste of time really. The entire purpose of all of this is to establish a workers' state and eventually achieve communism. If a workers' state hasn't been established even in a country that has all 10 of these things, it doesn't really have much to do with Marx's version of communism. Marx also said that the specific measures will be different in different countries. We can use or ditch whichever ones of these planks we need. Marx himself did that after he saw the failure of the Paris Commune. Aside from all that, you know Marx isn't a prophet, right? His word isn't law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rileymachelle4088 Uh what? Bro, insane comment.
1. Ellie has a clear arc throughout the story of TLOU2, and it additionally showcases her change between Part 1 and 2 as the story progresses. It's just not told in sequential order. Dina is a side character and doesn't need a character arc. Still, do you really need the game to tell you how a person's priorities might shift after giving birth to and raising a child?
2. Literally all of those things played out to completion. The WLF dog was killed by Ellie. Abby's dad being the surgeon Joel killed is literally her justification for seeking vengeance in the first place. Abby sleeping with Owen rekindled their relationship, strained the Salt Lake crew's relationship with Owen, and created a messed up situation that Abby still put as a lesser priority than saving Lev demonstrating her commitment to helping others rather than solving her personal problems. It also made Owen and Mel's deaths more impactful to her. Jesse served as a foil to Ellie. He didn't immediately die either. His death is one of the last things that happens in Ellie's Seattle story, yet he shows up in Day 2. He also saves Tommy, which is a pretty big deal. Ellie's backstory with Cat was told to completion. Nothing more is relevant to the story. You're talking about trivia like it's integral to the central character arc. Abby's friends got all the development they needed. You think it would've been better storytelling to flesh out all 7 of them? Why? What purpose or meaning would it add to the story? Maria's role is so minor in the story. Why do you need more? She's literally not involved in the central conflict. The shamblers are actually explained in great detail, so I don't even know why you're claiming this one. The Rat King is meant to be a terrifying almost unbelieveable monster. That's the entire point. Joel and Ellie and the Fireflies are literally the foundation of the story's central conflict. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You also don't seem to understand the principle of Chekhov's Gun in general. Every element of a story has to be relevant. Maria's role in supplying Ellie and Dina for their journey is relevant. The details of her fallout with Tommy is not relevant. What you're suggesting would actually violate Chekhov's Gun. Not to mention, this isn't a hardline rule but rather a general guideline. That's how writing works overall. There are no rules. Just guidelines. With your hardline adherence to Chekhov's Gun, you actually eliminate the possibility for another writing technique that can be useful called a Red Herring. The two can be used simultaneously if you view the misleading plot element as essential to the impact of the narrative, but it doesn't look like you approached this with any nuance at all. It's like you read some Wiki articles and believe that objective writing standards exist. With that, you're just going to fail, and you did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@henrymugello3387 Awful arguments.
1. Fungi don't die in winter. You'll note that they're still around in reality, and correct me if I'm wrong, but winter happens every year.
2. Yup. Fortunately for the infected, they can move and aren't stuck in one spot.
3. Two fungal vaccines are in the clincal testing stage in reality right now. Antibiotics and topicals is how we treat fungal infections, not how we prevent them.
4. What do you mean wouldn't let? You can't control a child's feelings.
5. This is straight up evil.
6. They didn't. They did everything right from a survivalist's perspective.
7. They got a random person to help them fight off a zombie horde. If it wasn't for Abby, Joel and Tommy would've never made it out of the ski lodge.
8. Abby tortures a man who killed her father and robbed the world of a vaccine. Still, you're never supposed to actually support what she did to Joel. She has a lot of qualms about murdering children. She specifically asks Yara where the Seraphites were taking the children during the WLF attack on the island. Yara explained they're being taken to shelters with ways off the island if necessary. Abby is relieved to hear this. No woman ever strongarmed her way to the front lines of combat. Mel was going to the FOB to work as an onsite medic. The only reason she saw combat at all was because Seraphites slipped past WLF lines and ambushed their truck. You're doubly wrong here too because Abby spoke out against it twice. She almost immediately told Mel that she could get a stay if she wanted. Afterwards, she says out loud in dialogue, "She shouldn't be out." She sleeps with the man she's in love with who's also in love with her after jointly realizing that sacrificing their relationship for revenge wasn't worth it. She kills a guy who burst into a room with his gun drawn, and she never takes glee in the thought of murdering Dina. She initially thought it'd be fair revenge for the murder of pregnant Mel, but she doesn't follow through. Lol you saying she should've let the WLF kill a 13 year old boy? I though having no qualms with child killing was a bad thing to you.
9. It doesn't. There is no player choice in this game. Wasn't any in the first game either.
10. They saved her life and were actively being hunted by Seraphites.
11. Pregnant women aren't slaves. And Owen is gone. Did you miss that?
12. Gross. You sound like a Witcher villain wanting the girl with the special blood to breed regardless of what she wants.
13. The game literally shows that the WLF has a state of the art gym facility and a food surprlus.
These are some of the worst arguments I've ever seen. You are supremely bad at this.
1
-
@henrymugello3387 Terrible and embarrassing arguments.
1. There's fungi that grows in Antarctica.
2. Right, and they get that sustenance. We literally see infected feasting on a deer in Part 2.
3. I said a vaccine, not a cure. You do know that the whole thing in the first game was a vaccine, right? The term "cure" was being used colloquially.
4 and 5. The Fireflies took away her choice too, but Joel didn't solve that by giving Ellie agency. He didn't even think to fight for that. He's equally as guilty. You also completely ignored the essential messed up part about this original point where you completely disregard a kid's feelings and go so far as to punish them for them. Evil shit, dude.
6. He didn't turn soft. Again, he did everything right. He just never had a chance. Also, if Abby's group was a bunch of bandits, why didn't they act like bandits before they knew who Joel was? How was Joel supposed to know? And if he did, what should he have done instead?
7. Of course not everyone is like that, but most people aren't ruthless murderers either. People they trade with and recruits are mentioned multiple times throughout the story.
8. So she should've let them execute the 13 year old boy instead? I need you to answer that question directly.
9. Nope, choice is not required whatsoever to make it work. Just like it wasn't required for the first game either. You don't have to feel personally guilty for anything. Why would you? This isn't a created player insert character here.
10. Your point was about Abby trusting Lev and Yara. I explained why she does. She also trusted Joel not to turn on her before she struck and was right about that too because she had good reason to think that. The reason she chooses to protect Lev over siding with Isaac is a different topic just like the reason she chose to kill Joel after he saved her is a different topic. You're going out of your way to ignore basic context while also conflating subjects.
11. No, I do not agree with that at all to any degree whatsoever. Mel wasn't showing in Jackson with a big jacket on. She was showing in Seattle, which takes place a month later. Every person with a uterus is different, but generally, pregnancy is visible beginning in the second trimester, though some don't show until the beginning of the third. That means in Jackson, Mel was probably 4 or 5 months pregnant and in Seattle, she was probably 5 or 6 months pregnant. This also fits with her line, "another month and I wouldn't fit," as she squeezes through the door in the hardware store implying she's not in her last month or "about to give birth" as you falsely suggested. And again, women aren't slaves under the WLF. She wasn't going into combat. She was going to work as an on site medic at the FOB, not be a soldier.
12. This is so aggressively creepy, dude. How about let her decide, yeah? Making the vaccine and destroying all hope for the vaccine were wrong too because neither let Ellie choose. Seriously, read the Witcher books and maybe you'll learn why letting girls choose for themselves is good actually.
13. Holy shit you went on a whole rant about Abby's physique. Just say you're envious of her gains, bro. Whatever makes it easier for you to ignore the WLF's gym and farm. Abby built herself up because she was obsessed with revenge. Pretty obvious really. I can't believe people are still arguing about what should be the least controversial part of the game. Though I do enjoy when it becomes a thing again since a bunch of jacked ladies start posting selfies all over Twitter. That's nice to see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1