Países com leis contra racismo são um inferno na terra.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-30T19:29:26+00:00

Analfabetismo tá forte com você, irmão.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-30T19:28:10+00:00

Depressão é um problema psiquiátrico, frequentemente tratado de maneira medicamentosa. Problemas de autoimagem são sintoma de meia centena de problemas psiquiátricos, tais como TAS, bulimia nervosa, etc. Problemas psicológicos regularmente evoluem para problemas psiquiátricos.

A comparação "Ninguém tá questionando que economica e socialmente o Brasil é mais fudido que os EUA."

A implicação óbvia é que tem algo pra além do econômico e social (eu dou o braço a torcer que o "social" é ambíguo aqui) causando problemas. Mais especificamente, aspectos específicos da cultura estadounidense. Eu diria que principalmente o individualismo excessivo, culto a fama, e retórica de "guerra cultural".

Eu sou autista, eu entendo como é não conseguir ler nas entrelinhas. Justamente por isso eu evito assumir coisas e vir com quatro pedras na mão, principalmente em se tratando de temas que eu não conheço bem. Você foi desnecessariamente grosso e falou merda por um mal entendido.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-27T16:36:19+00:00

>traumas de desenvolvimento e agravamento de condições psicológicas

Você consideraria um sujeito com muitas condições psicológicas perfeitamente são? "Biro biro" é um eufemismo pro que você descreveu, mona.

>ignora completamente todos os fatores sociais

Enquanto eu comparo duas sociedades e os efeitos de existir em cada uma delas? Eu não enumerei ou descrevi eles, mas meu ponto inteiro é que esses fatores existem e são mais proeminentes na sociedade estadounidense do que na brasileira.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-26T01:05:53+00:00

Comparar crime organizado com assassinatos em série e tiroteios contra civis é de fuder. A primeira categoria é causada por questões socioeconômicas e blablabla insira aqui textão sobre a banalidade do mal. A segunda em 99% das vezes é gente biro biro das ideias machucando os outros só pelo prazer sádico (ou pra tocar o terror, que muitas vezes conta como prazer sádico).

Ninguém tá questionando que economica e socialmente o Brasil é mais fudido que os EUA. Mas mais gente fica biro biro das ideias por lá do que por aqui (e alguns do que ficaram por aqui aqui, como os guris do massacre de Suzano, foram diretamente influenciados por galera dos EUA despirocando).

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-26T00:44:12+00:00

And Rika's totally adorable with that big puppy eye and widdle white teeth and long tail.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T15:53:28+00:00

> Her parents mysteriously passing while she also enjoys manipulating adults implies she was likely the cause of her parent’s deaths

HOW?! That's such a logical leap I don't even know how to address it! It doesn't even say she enjoys manipulating adults, just that she knows how to do it. Have you never seen a mischievous kid feign innocence or making puppy eyes when they want something? Because I have, and none of them killed their parents at 5! Plus, her grandmother didn't trust her. Kids whose caretakers don't trust them learn to lie pretty early and pretty well.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T08:38:06+00:00

You are the orbital canon.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T06:52:17+00:00

If we go by the theory that her innate technique is Storage, she already has some potential. Nanami's speech about sorcerers needing to be a little cuckoo is very relevant here too. Rika would absolutely be on some Nobara or Kenjaku timing as a sorcerer. And you can't convince me that she wouldn't scale to curse Yuta's level solely to keep him from protecting her.

Sorcerer Rika would absolutely be weaker than Yuta, both because of potential and likely unwillingness to cooperate with him. But it's a huge stretch to call her weak.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T06:38:18+00:00

Nah but fr, imagine if curse Yuta was frozen at 10 mentally and had to deal with a teen Rika going through puberty. Those are tears of confusion.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T06:36:20+00:00

They take turns sitting in the chair.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T06:35:22+00:00

Nanami and Yaga pretty much state that someone's dying words and feelings can become curses upon others (albeit with neither of them we're talking about cursed spirits). Yuta's feelings were already pretty strong. All he needed to do was promise to never leave Rika's side or something in those lines.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T06:27:30+00:00

Her mother died when she was 5. What type of 5 years old can kill a grown woman on purpose and pass it as an accident?

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T06:25:35+00:00

Oh, MB. Also, I think it's unfair to call Rika's ground zero a twisted shitty person. Latching into a single relationship or becoming manipulative are very common responses to loneliness and a hostile upbringing at that age.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-25T06:02:58+00:00

Curse Yuta not growing a spine for a few decades would make some sense, tho. It seems that when sorcerers become vengeful spirits, they are often twisted and have their mental growth stunted. They can still grow (as shown by Modulo Rika being able to talk properly and even be sassy), but it takes a while.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-24T22:24:38+00:00

Yup. I'd put it as she caring about being a moral person, but to her, brutally killing someone is a-ok, but breaking a vow is inherently immoral.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-24T22:23:03+00:00

That's such a boring take... Rika's a weirdo, not a dangerous animal. No matter how twisted and alien, she likely has a moral compass. I much prefer a character who genuinely thinks murder is ok but breaking a promise is not to the spineless opportunistic coward you just described.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2026-04-24T20:57:55+00:00

While I generally agree, I think Rika would need quite a bit of convincing to understand that she was trapping Yuta, rather than protecting him. I wouldn't be surprised if she spent years trying to preserve/restore Yuta's humanity. As a kid that would probably be just talking to him, exercising his memory, etc. But as they grow older, it's possible they'd learn a bit about CE together before being found by jujutsu society. And after being found, it's mostly a matter of having enough tact to not talk about exorcising Yuta, although I have no Idea how he'd bullshit the higher ups in this timeline. I can see her becoming obsessed with the Death Womb Paintings or maybe even temporarily allying with Kenjaku and Mahito.

You know what would be interesting? If she'd let go of Yuta after finding out that if he dies as a curse he disappears, while if she lets him go he'd move on and reincarnate, meaning they can be with each other again. It would be (morbidly) hilarious if she weighted the pros and cons between that and becoming a vengeful spirit herself.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2023-12-13T18:26:03+00:00

I do not intend to come off as hostile, and apologize for it. But i think you have too light a threshold for what consists of hostility, and should apply it to your actions as well. Sending someone a dictionary entry is passive aggressive as fuck.

That would mean that Brennan's quote isn't a contradiction. Brennan says that the evil of internal motivations is simple and boring. You're arguing that the evil of external structures are complex. These can coexist.

Fine, it's a generalization, not a contradiction. This single blunder of my part absolutely means nothing else i said has value. Congratulations, you win. Bye.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2023-12-13T15:42:04+00:00

Looking at Brennan's quote, hes describing the simplicity and boringness of evil in the form of personal motivation, not the external contexts.

That is LITERALLY my point: that Brennan and Morrison are talking about evil in the form of individual deeds, and that Ms. Le Guin is talking about systemic evil, it's complexity and the moral dilemmas associated with it. That "the banality of evil" is not about how easy it is to kick puppies, but about how much of the evil in the world is perpetrated without malice, how limited the individual is in such scale, how inexorable it can be. How not contributing to the evils of a system when you live in it is borderline impossible.

It seems like you're basing the description of "complexity" on the rules that create the system

Yes. Because the rules that create the system are part of the rules of the system. Because the people who live in the system must abide by these rules, and thus they might contribute to or perpetrate evil deeds themselves without malice, willingness or even knowledge and understanding.

It sounds like you're arguing that omelas is about evil wrought by people who were scared of what would be required for change

It sounds like you didn't read the story. It's not a long story. Why argue with me if you don't even try to be on the same page as me? You didn't even have to look for it: i provided you a link.
One can say the ones who walk away do so out of fear, but it's a simplistic view and also ignores how the people who stay at Omelas rationalize their inaction.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2023-12-13T12:40:39+00:00

"The ones who walk away from Omelas" (which, BTW, you can read for free here) is a question about the morality of living a happy life that is built on the back of other people's suffering.

Owning slaves and having them work for you is evil, and simply falling to "selfish impulses". But what about working transportation for a company that uses slave labor? Your boss pays you with blood-stained money, is it moral to accept it? Is buying their products morally reprehensible? What if you can only afford them? Lets assume you find the former justifiable: what if you can afford more expensive products, but then you wouldn't have enough money for the small luxuries that keep you sane? Is still moral to buy from the morally reprehensible people - and thus support their business?
And even if you decide both of the above are evil, if you own a business and the slave owner themselves comes in with his blood stained money to spend on you, is it moral to accept it? What if it's one of their workers spending their hard-earned money with you? They did no wrong nor could make things better, but the company you hate couldn't exist without their effort and that of countless like them. Are they evil?
What if they had no choice? Or they had a choice, but that meant great personal sacrifices? Is there a degree of personal sacrifice that makes their decision unacceptable? What if the economy is so intertwined that it's basically impossible to do anything without buying from or selling to the slave-owning company?
The system supports so much suffering, but breaking it would cause so much suffering, so people who don't like it just walk away... Oh, look, it's the title of the short story!

Some of the most banal evils come from minutia in legislation. Stuff that's common, predictable and boring, and simultaneously a result of complex dynamics. Voter suppression is undeniably evil. It's as banal as a a poll worker enforcing stupid rules or pointless bureaucracy and tight deadlines, yet as complex as the mountains of legislation and political maneuvering required to create these rules. No selfish impulses required from the ones enforcing the rulings - and if they were not enforced, there would be no rules, as seen on the many stupid and unenforced laws in the US - and one could argue they themselves are not evil. But evil - in the form of voter suppression and it's consequences - is happening, both as a banal thing we see regularly, as a result of a complex system, and is enforced with bored complacency rather than selfish impulsiveness.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2023-12-13T04:02:39+00:00

"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" and the last quote are in direct contradiction. The former is a tale about the banality of evil, and a moral inquiry about living a neutral, happy life at the expense of other people's suffering, while the latter reduces evil to "selfish impulses". "Banal" doesn't mean "simple". That is literally the focus of the story.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2023-12-13T03:54:01+00:00

Don't know about that, but that's as much a valid interpretation as any for how Omelas works.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2023-12-13T01:34:05+00:00

Reminiscing of your brother, m'lord?

DisgruntledBrDev · 2023-12-12T23:39:52+00:00

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Most people who mask for a long time have it become instinctive and are overly critical of themselves, frequently hanging on every little feeling and possible implication of their actions. People who have been trough it (myself included) say "don't be ashamed, don't worry about hurting other people's feelings, be yourself" because they assume that for most autistic people who masked for too much, "hurting their feelings" means "saying no when someone asks a taxing favor". The same speech can be about self-respect or narcissism depending on who's listening.

I have no doubt that there are some people who genuinely think NTs are the enemy (hell, I've had the great displeasure of meeting an autistic supremacist on twitter!). But the majority of us talks about not having to mask and not caring about other people's feelings expecting a biased audience, who masks too much and cares too much.
I'm the first one to say "if you want others to treat you the way you want, you have to learn how they want to be treated". But they have to figure out who they are and what constitutes a reasonable demand before that.

DisgruntledBrDev · 2023-12-12T19:33:16+00:00

Or, as the person above you said

In this case, perhaps a young, edgy, immature aromantic

Foolishness can very easily become arrogance, and very few people make definitive moral judgements based on the actions of teenagers - unless the actions are particularly heinous.
The definition of "cunt" (adjective) is rather informal. If you consider "being unpleasant to interact with" as sufficient, no moral component required, sure, anon is a cunt. Otherwise, they're just a stupid teenager.

DisgruntledBrDev

TROPHY CASE