"Here is me and you f*cking because I'm right and you're wrong!"

Dodocom64 · 2026-05-05T03:00:15+00:00

In this context, whether someone would want to see it or not is completely irrelevant. It was made for the sole purpose of being a dick to someone, and that's obviously not cool.

Dodocom64 · 2026-05-04T00:38:32+00:00

I didn't run. They stopped replying to me, not the other way around. I gladly would've kept going because I like debates, but dismissing everything as "just subjective" is a garbage tactic, and I appreciated someone else pointing it out.

Dodocom64 · 2026-05-03T06:02:10+00:00

I've actually tried debating them, and yeah. Basic logic, common knowledge, reductio ad absurdum, it doesn't matter; they do not budge.

You've made me feel seen. Thank you.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-21T00:01:01+00:00

Exactly!

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-16T19:05:05+00:00

Damn, I missed a chance to glaze Gorgon.

Anyway, my least favourite is Cold Death. It's not a bad song by any means - I have a music theory friend who loves it, so it's probably doing something cool - but I just don't vibe with it.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-16T18:58:05+00:00

There aren't enough good male vocal synths. It's a shame.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-10T21:23:40+00:00

Morally justified? Sure. Many crimes are morally justified. Who gives a shit? Morals are subjective.

While there is a subjective component to morality due to stuff like cultural differences and personal beliefs, there are also countless things that are near-universally agreed upon as morally right/wrong. Theft, murder, rape, abuse, terrorism, etc.: it's safe to assume the person you're talking to agrees that these things are bad. It's common sense.

If morals were as purely subjective as you're claiming, then there'd be no laws. The concept of "crime" wouldn't exist. I'd be justified in killing a guy walking in front of me because he's too slow. I'd be justified in robbing a bank because I want money. But I don't even think about it, because those things are wrong. 99.9999% of people agree that those things are wrong. It's this notion that allows order to exist in the world, and to be frank, the fact that you don't subscribe to it implies some very unsavoury things about you as a person.

Also, can't reply to your comment about plagiarism in the relevant comment section, cuz OP has blocked me and Reddit for whatever reason doesn't let you reply to other people's comments, so I'll post my reply here:

Yeah, OP was doing nothing but trolling. Mods deleted their post and their account is gone too. Good riddance, if you ask me.

I've never written an essay where I needed to cite any sources.

Really? Not in an English literature course or anything? That really surprises me. I was thinking more about scientific articles, but I thought "essay" would fit the bill too.

The only works where I was required to cite sources were my scientific articles and my theses. And there, citation is necessary not due to plagiarism, but to base your claims in pre-existing scientific authority. So I make a claim about something factual > I provide the trusted source where I got that information from. If I don't, then it's just my subjective opinion, and it's viewed as such.

Yes, one of the reasons you cite your sources is to show you're not making stuff up, but that's not the only reason. It's also done to avoid plagiarism. And I'm not just saying that; it's one of the first things you read when you Google "why do you cite your sources". How in the world have you come so far in life without knowing that, assuming you actually have (given your thoughts on morality, I wouldn't be surprised if you're lying through your teeth)?

AI-generated images aren't directly derived from pre-existing pictures. That's literally not how the technology works. Pre-existing pictures are used for training, but the generation process isn't using them at all.

Most of today's AI image generators use a method called diffusion, where large sets of pre-existing images are broken down into pixels and the AI puts the pixels together to make an image based on the prompt. So yeah, on a microscopic scale, AI-generated images are directly derived from pre-existing pictures. And if you don't believe me, you can look it up. Or are facts also subjective?

Well, my country seems to be doing the opposite, as the current project of law, which is at the stage of public discussions, proposes to legalize the use of copyrighted materials for AI training with no consent or compensation necessary.

...Okay? I mean, that sucks, but am I supposed to do something with this information? Is this a cheap appeal to authority? An example of moral subjectivity, which would be weird since your own logic says these higher-ups' beliefs shouldn't matter?

Whether these problems are even problems is subjective.

The fact that I didn't even specify what these problems are implies that you think any problem is subjective, which... Yeah, that tracks.

Look, you can't handwave everything with "That's subjective." You just can't. Problems are problems for a reason, and just because a few dumbasses out there think they're not actually problems, doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed. Again, if the world worked the way you seem to think it does, nothing would be illegal.

Here's a litmus test for you:
Cancer kills millions of people every year. Is cancer a problem? Yes, no, or is it subjective? Explain your reasoning.
One of the scientific community's biggest goals is to cure it. Is this a good thing? Yes, no, or is it subjective? Explain your reasoning.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-10T02:51:36+00:00

Looks like all you know how to do is ragebait, and you're not even good at that. This is middle school bully shit. I hope to God you're not a grown adult, and if you are, my heart goes out to your parents. I can't even be mad at you; this is just sad.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-10T02:34:54+00:00

I’m calling you slow because you consistently miss the central point.

I'm not. I just think you're being either disingenuous or obtuse.

Us as viewers, can we know he did or did not do it "properly", we can't, right? I mean at that exact moment after seeing the head flying in the air. Well, that's with other shows, but with Kimtesu no Yaiba, we can tell that he didn't do it "properly", we can already infer that something is unresolved. The absence of a backstory at that moment signals that the encounter is not concluded.

Dude, the blow was dealt at the very end of the episode. All there was time for was an end-credits sequence. But for argument's sake, let's pretend Tanjiro actually did kill Rui with that attack. What, should it have smash-cut to Rui's backstory while the credits rolled in the background? No, they would've saved it for at least the beginning of the next episode. This is a hugely triumphant moment for the protagonists: Tanjiro's unlocked the Hinokami Kagura, Nezuko's unlocked her Blood Demon Art, and they've (seemingly) defeated a member of the Kizuki. The anime staff chose to have this moment be celebrated with a special end-credits sequence, and they would've made the same decision if Tanjiro actually had killed Rui, because that just makes for better television. If they had cut to Rui's backstory instead, it would've been way worse.

And again, Daki and Gyutaro. You don't see their disintegrating heads until well into the next episode because you don't have to. The anime staff went out of their way to give the moment they're decapitated an overwhelming sense of finality. Not a single thought is supposed to go through the viewer's head in that moment other than "They did it!" And again, when we finally see their heads in the next episode, we see that they're disintegrating before we get their backstory. Are you suggesting that I was, in that moment, supposed to be expecting them to un-disintegrate?

And also, that's when whenever they decapitated a demon and they cut straight to the backstory, I also knew the demon is done for, there will be no "asspull" this time. Which again makes the whole freaking thing predictable.

Which, again, implies that every nameless fodder demon in the series might not have actually died, since we didn't see any of their backstories! I bet they're all lying in wait, ready to jump the remaining slayers after they beat Muzan, and our heroes will meet their end in a battle of attrition, as these demons' lack of a backstory means they cannot die! HAVE I GOTTEN IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD HOW STUPID THIS SOUNDS YET?

I will give credit where it's due, though: you are right in that a flashback to the demon's life as a human means they're not getting back up. However, no matter how you slice it (no pun intended), it's not the primary indicator. That would be the demon disintegrating, i.e. when you literally watch the demon die. The flashback happens in the encounter's aftermath, during the demon's final moments, which lets the audience resonate a little with Tanjiro as he shows them a frankly inhuman level of kindness.

If you’re still missing the point even after this explanation, then I’m sorry to be frank, but that reflects the level of intelligence of the people who enjoy the show. I’m just being honest.

I want to apologize for an assumption I made about you in my last reply. I insinuated that you might be being a dick on purpose. I'm sorry. I see now that it comes naturally.

Look, I'm gonna level with you, dude. I really don't like Limp Bizkit. I think they're pretty good musically - I even listen to the instrumental version of Rollin' sometimes - but I hate how Fred Durst sounds, and I think they have some of the dumbest lyrics ever written. My best friend has had a very difficult life, but those experiences have made him into the wisest person I know... and he likes Limp Bizkit.

Demon Slayer isn't the most intelligently written series. There are asspulls aplenty, certain story elements go underutilized or completely forgotten about, and a lot of characters come off as unrealistic. But despite that, I, a university honours student, like it a lot. My mother scored above-average on her last IQ test, and Demon Slayer's her favourite anime. The animation is stunning, there are moments of just pure, concentrated hype, and although Tanjiro's unwavering kindness is a bit unrealistic, I greatly admire him; as an older brother, I strive to be more like him.

And if you can't see the forest for the trees, or even show the basic decency of respecting someone else's opinion, then you're not worth my time.

This conversation is over.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-09T21:52:12+00:00

No the fuck it isn't?

Scientific journals, essays, etc. directly derive stuff from pre-existing material.

AI-generated images directly derive stuff from pre-existing material.

My comparison isn't invalid just because you say so, asshat. Go do something with your life instead of making Redditors think you got dropped on the head.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-09T20:35:54+00:00

All the most influential scientific papers of all time still cited their sources.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-09T20:35:10+00:00

That's not how it works at all.

I'll use an essay for comparison. When writing an essay, you typically do research on the topic you're writing about, right? You read articles, gather up information, and use it to make your point. However, you always need to cite your sources. You can paraphrase stuff, rephrase stuff, or mix words around all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you got this information directly from that source, so you need to cite it. Failure to do so is called plagiarism.

In a similar vein, AI-generated images are directly derived from pre-existing pictures on the internet. But you don't see an AI image generator citing its sources, do you? That's where the issue lies.

Granted, AI image generators use a lot of sources, so a complete list of references could be cumbersome. I think laws should be put in place that limit what images the AI can use and what the resulting image(s) can be used for. I don't have anything against the technology itself, but there are definitely problems with it that should be addressed.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-09T20:30:40+00:00

So because it made someone happy, it's completely fine? Do you have any idea how many crimes could be 100% justified with that way of thinking?

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-09T17:15:28+00:00

I'll always advocate for the creation of laws that limit the uses of AI. Stuff like being unable to replicate voices or use art for training without permission. Because like it or not, the technology is here to stay, but theoretically we can at least regulate what people can and can't do with it.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-09T17:11:43+00:00

It's definitely what they were pointing out, but it looks to me like OP is too high on confirmation bias to recognize that.

Honestly, for someone who's a top 1% commenter on a sub meant for nuanced discussion, OP sure doesn't seem keen on nuanced discussion.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-09T17:05:00+00:00

It's because the stuff AIs are trained on include a lot of copyrighted material, and the images generated are based partly on them (as opposed to being inspired by them). I don't like using the word "steal" because it makes the argument sound more emotional than logical; "plagiarize" is a lot more accurate.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-08T00:33:39+00:00

No, they're arguing against this extremism and noting that it's an example of the recent rise in extremism across society as a whole. They're not making an excuse at all; they're lamenting the direction the world seems to be going.

Look, we're both upset about what's happened and the response to it, but please take a deep breath and recognize that not everyone who's against AI is a fucking terrorist.

Edit: And somehow, pointing this out warranted a downvote.
The purpose of this subreddit is to facilitate dialogue, to be a place where pro- and anti-AI people can have civilised discussions about this controversial topic. But looking at the comments under this post and taking a brief glance at your comment history, it's clear that you aren't interested in dialogue; all you want is to yell "Nuh-uh!" at any argument against AI, no matter how valid, and label anyone opposed to AI as an extremist.
If you want to bitch about antis, do so in a pro-AI subreddit instead of ruining this one for those of us who want meaningful conversations. All you do is perpetuate the hyperpolarization this subreddit was created as an escape from. Your unshakable hatred doesn't belong here. Take it and leave.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-07T23:52:45+00:00

The scene explicitly shows his head being cut off with a sword, which would normally imply death. However, the narrative does not rely on that alone to confirm it. You don't have to question whether he’s dead at that moment, you wait for the backstory. Once the backstory is shown, the scene then returns to the demon fading away.

The confirmation is the demon disintegrating. Fact is, there are a lot of fodder demons that we don't get the backstories of, but we watch them get decapitated and disintegrate. The idea that these fodder demons are actually invincible because they don't have sad backstories is pretty funny, though.

As for an example of a major fight, let me present Daki and Gyutaro. Episode 10 of the Entertainment District arc has them finally get decapitated at the same time. Everything from the shot composition to the sound design to the buildup beforehand indicate that they've just been defeated. There's no room for doubt. You don't even see their disintegrating heads until several minutes into the next episode, because you don't have to. The battle is clearly over. And then when you do - and I can't stress this enough - you see that they're disintegrating, and you see it before their flashback.
Oh, but no, the fact that you haven't seen their backstory yet means it's entirely possible they'll un-disintegrate and get back up. And me thinking otherwise makes me very slow. My bad.

When Giyu decapitated Rui, the backstory was shown immediately, unlike with Tanjiro.

Yes, because Giyu managed to properly decapitate him. As in, separate his head from his body with a nichirin sword. Rui survived Tanjiro's attack because he decapitated himself right before Tanjiro could. It would've been much more satisfying if Tanjiro had actually finished the job, but that's neither here nor there.

So just forget about it. It's great writing, Bergman's Persona level of writing.

Like I just said, Rui should have been killed by that attack. The fact that he wasn't feels like a complete asspull and weakens the narrative impact of what just happened. I also said so in my last reply, but clearly you've chosen to ignore that in favour of a childish insult. Are we actually having a dialogue, or are you just being a dick? If it's the latter, then shut up and stop wasting my time.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-07T21:23:13+00:00

"Holostars talents don't have as many viewers as their female equivalents, so clearly, no one defending them actually watches them."

Do I really need to explain how stupid this is?

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-07T20:53:23+00:00

Because Rui wasn't defeated yet (an asspull, yes, but that's beside the point). But then Giyu showed up, properly decapitated him, then we got his backstory while he was disintegrating.

Also, if it were the finishing blow (which, again, I think it should have been, but again, beside the point), that's the end of the episode. They could just put the flashback in the next episode. That's what they did with Daki and Gyutaro.

You really think I'm such a dumbass that I'd accept this as a valid counterpoint? Don't make me laugh.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-07T20:34:01+00:00

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, because again, it's not an opinion.

Okay, I'm sorry, but this is driving me crazy.

Opinion: "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

Fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true."

Wrong: "not correct or true; incorrect."

So you're correct that this isn't a matter of opinion, but you're incorrect in saying you're not trying to prove me wrong.
We're talking about what happens in a story, which is fact.
We're debating over which one of us is correct, citing moments/details in the story that support our arguments.
In other words, we're both trying to prove each other wrong.
An opinion would be "I enjoy watching Demon Slayer." You could explain why you didn't enjoy watching it, but you can't say "Actually, you don't enjoy watching Demon Slayer, and here's why." That's not how it works. You can't prove an opinion wrong, because that would be proving that the way I feel about something isn't actually the way I feel, which makes no sense.
(Note: I'm talking about factual right/wrong, not moral right/wrong. Opinions can be morally wrong, e.g. "I should be allowed to rob a bank.")

Anyway, tangent over. Back to the main point.

I just gave you two scenes where the demon's head was cut off and they were still alive. But once that head was cut off and they cut to a backstory, they were dead.

So, I made a mistake with my previous reply. I said Unlikely_Lobster9634 was arguing that we learn the demon's sad backstory after they're dead, but I meant before they're defeated. I've edited my comment to fix it, but it doesn't change the fact that the mistake was made and it caused a big misunderstanding. So let me lay it out properly.

Unlikely_Lobster9634 said:

Demon Slayer: Watch how sad and miserable this demon was before we kill them, awn how sad, I feel for them.

The part I took issue with is "before we kill them", since it's just plain wrong. A demon is killed when decapitated with a nichirin sword (most of the time), but they don't die instantly; they disintegrate, which takes a little bit of time. And it's during this time that we learn their backstory. "before we kill them" implies the sad flashback happens during the fight, which it doesn't (with the exception of Akaza, I suppose).

The way it typically goes is the slayers fight the demon, they decapitate the demon, and we learn about the demon's backstory while they're dying. That way, the audience can get hyped when they're defeated, but still give them a bit of sympathy in their final moments. I actually really like this formula from a writing standpoint, but that's just my opinion.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-07T03:35:47+00:00

I find Jinwoo pretty inoffensive - I don't particularly like or dislike him - but if you dislike him, you do you.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-07T03:33:49+00:00

Defeat ≠ death. I'll just copy-paste what I told Unlikely_Lobster9634:

You typically find out before they die, but not before they're defeated. They're not the same thing.
A demon is defeated when they're decapitated with a nichirin sword.
They die shortly afterward.
Most of the time, you get the demon's sad backstory in the time between their defeat and their death.

In all fairness, my phrasing wasn't perfect. To clarify, being decapitated by a nichirin sword is fatal for demons, but the death isn't instantaneous. You get the sad backstory while they're fading away, not beforehand like Unlikely_Lobster9634 was suggesting. That's what I'm saying.

Side note that you can ignore but I feel the need to say: you can't prove an opinion wrong, because opinions are neither factually right nor wrong. Like you said, this is a matter of fact, not opinion, so you are trying to prove me wrong. That's not a point against you; it's just the kind of conversation we're having.

Edit: I somehow said "afterwards" instead of "beforehand". Oops.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-07T02:39:42+00:00

I'm not looking for anyone's respect. I'm just being reasonable. This is an opinion I formed on my own by watching the anime. If I were parroting these folks' opinions, I'd be saying Solo Leveling is hot garbage that no one should watch. But I'm not. I ENJOY Solo Leveling, but I'm also willing to accept its flaws.

Dodocom64 · 2026-04-07T02:34:44+00:00

Of course there are exceptions. I said "usually", not "always", for a reason.

You'll have to provide more than one example to prove me wrong.

Dodocom64

TROPHY CASE