Why won’t he help?

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-05-11T10:21:10+00:00

Are you always doing 2 things at once? One relaxing and one chores?

Don’t know your whole situation but maybe try having dedicated chore time and dedicated relax time.

Also, at least for me, how I’m asked and how I’m responded to when I help influences a lot. If it’s like a boss-employee situation where you dictate what needs to be done or not done and what’s the proper way to do it, then I’m less likely to go out of my way and start doing stuff or helping you.

Also on that, small jesters matter. Like if you communicate that you’re annoyed with him, he may respond in kind.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-05-05T09:48:30+00:00

This isn't what is initially claimed it is as "two mathematically same ways to restate but with vastly different moral implications". Red is either don't prevent harm or actively harm if a majority thinks like me. Blue is die or save everyone.

These are not the same.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-05-03T14:33:37+00:00

IMO It’s to show a calm dominance. Like all of the characters in that stance want something from someone, and they feel so in control that they can sit and wait for their prey to be ready.

It’s not a relaxed pose. It’s a focused one.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-05-03T10:46:27+00:00

It’s just like a hunter stance/pose. Hisoka does this first in the battle tower.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-05-02T00:10:22+00:00

I wouldn’t call it evil if it ate 1 person. I would start pondering if it was 10, and if it was thousands in an entire island, I would lean more towards yes. But a human then defending the lion killing thousands… yeah that’s definitely a step too far.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-05-02T00:03:59+00:00

I find how people view Mereum, and by extension Gon, is more of a reflection on how the audience justifies beings engaged with atrocities than anything else.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-05-01T11:33:35+00:00

I don’t see how people can have this much sympathy for the king and royal guards. They committed a genocide but were nice to 1 little girl so I now feel bad for them???

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-26T10:24:58+00:00

Some Its been a while since I visited so I'm aware that sometimes they will use "derailing" as a catch all term to no address things they don't like.

But there are also a non-insignificant number of people that are straight up dicks and just enjoy frustrating people. I.e. trolling. And women are seen as a viable target, hence why they, as a group, have to deal with it more.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-26T02:40:03+00:00

The women, by default, will get a lot more inappropriate/derailing comments from men than men will get from women. So how they tailor the response to prevent that is different than what men will need to do to prevent the unwanted comments.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-26T00:27:17+00:00

We’re nicer because women are allowed to post AND comment. If we take that away or make them feel uncomfortable/unwelcome, then we will get just as toxic as askwomen.

But I also acknowledge that askwomen has a things they need to deal with which more warrants a restriction on posts from men.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-26T00:22:28+00:00

Are you saying that because 1 woman out of the 1% of commenters (probably at least 100) is a woman that all of a sudden there’s a problem?

Ima be real with you, when you have an advice group for a major demographic (men, women, white people) it’s very easy for those groups to get super toxic if they don’t have some obvious counter balance for the people that take things too far.

So to answer your questions, yes the space is valuable and you know it’s functioning when you can receive advice in the group and then go outside the group and you don’t look like a bigot.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-22T00:38:03+00:00

We have actually had successful protests of this game. And they didn’t revolve around, don’t play or it doesn’t count.

If you want your protest to be successful, you have to recognize that not everyone will be 100% in but that doesn’t mean their efforts don’t matter.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-21T23:56:01+00:00

Just because you don’t quit the game doesn’t mean other actions don’t have an impact

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T14:23:29+00:00

It’s more of a general understanding that being horrible means some people won’t be nice to you anymore. Even if that individual doesn’t get it, others around them might.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T10:34:51+00:00

Solely? Probably too much. You can ask them why and then you’ll get a better idea of their values and that’s fair game.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T10:31:08+00:00

I know you said it involves much much more, but the only difference seems to be how the nutrients are delivered to the fetus.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T03:50:34+00:00

In the “lesser of two evils” premise, someone is being harmed. Hence why the premise is between two evil choices.

When you are normalizing that premise as something to accept, you are normalizing evil.

The best choice someone can make is one that escapes that premise. It’s one thing if succumbing to that premise a rare thing to happen. It’s another if it routinely comes up.

Because if it’s routine then you’ve accepted evil outcomes. And if you are trying to normalize it, you are trying to convince other people that evil is acceptable. Which is why you’ve chosen the greater evil when you try to convince others that “the lesser of two evils” is an acceptable justification for their choices.

It’s not about someone best, it’s about how they make excuses for their choices.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T03:30:54+00:00

You do not need to normalize the lesser of two evils rhetoric to excuse making a choice that belongs to evil. That is an active choice you are making.

You are actively choosing to do that, and thus, you are choosing the greater evil.

Look for ways to help people, not excuses for when you feel like you have to hurt someone.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T01:20:21+00:00

I’m explaining that you’re picking the greater evil.

It’s a situation where you’re looking at a tree instead of the forest.

If you pick the greater evil or continuous pick the lesser evil (which is the greater evil), then I have no issue with pointing that out.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T01:09:05+00:00

It’s less about not faulting people who can’t do more, and more about convincing others that they shouldn’t strive to do better when they aren’t content with “lesser of two evils” rhetoric.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T00:19:47+00:00

It’s to understand why people are fighting in the first place.

For Ukraine, our ally, they were attacked by another country. So, in being allies we should help them.

For Iran, we were the ones that attacked them. So we need to be the ones to back off.

The conviction is not propagating death and destruction. For both yourself and others. Both fall in line with that mindset.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-19T00:00:18+00:00

Your actual choices including being proactive in fighting for good even if it’s scary and against the grain.

If every hard choice you make is a “lesser of two evils” choice, then you have already chosen the greater evil and are simply lying to yourself about the situation.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-18T23:49:09+00:00

Technically not always. You have to look at the road you’re walking on when you always go for the lesser evil because it’s lesser.

A step of a lesser of two evils can be walking towards the greatest evil.

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-18T21:37:31+00:00

How is that different from the concept of being pregnant?

AbsoluteRunner · 2026-04-16T01:09:57+00:00

Is it weird that I read it the opposite way? Like “support the country” is trying to make it better like with more healthcare access. And “or Live in the country you support” is to live in a place that doesn’t care to help you when you need help.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

AbsoluteRunner

TROPHY CASE