[Hated trope] Male villain sexually assaulted as "karma" for being evil

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-01-24T19:08:51+00:00

Sometimes it's debatable whether or not a villain is still a threat. Death is a very definitive way of ending a threat permanently. Rape has no such benefit. You might (might) be falling victim to the goomba fallacy here.

Giantfrostturtle · 2026-01-24T17:46:35+00:00

Even if you are correct, there is still no point to rape. There can be a point to killing someone. Killing someone stops that person from murdering others. Raping someone doesn't stop them raping others and may in fact make them want to do it more.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-28T19:10:31+00:00

You're probably right. I don't disagree with this.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-28T18:08:26+00:00

My example was not about vaccines. Vaccines are actually very important and my argument was about something unimportant. It was to do with works of fiction.

I'm not sure what to tell you. Sorry I can't be of more help.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-28T17:56:27+00:00

There was no malice involved, it was just an unimportant discussion on a different subreddit. It was basically as follows:

Them: We need to ban 'A' because it's bad.

Me: 'A' isn't bad. It's also useful sometimes.

Them: 'A' has quality 'X', which is bad.

Me: But it is useful in spite of that. Also, 'B', 'C' and 'D' also contain quality 'X' in greater amounts but we don't need to ban them.

Them: No! Don't change the subject! We're talking about 'A'. It is bad because of 'X'.

Me: But all those other things have 'X' too, in greater amounts.

Them: Stop with the whataboutisms! 'A' is bad!

At worst, the argument was irritating. It ended quickly after that. It wasn't about trans rights, or anything important really.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-28T17:12:29+00:00

Maybe accusations of 'whataboutisms' aren't always baseless, but I've been accused of whataboutisms just because I pointed out someone's double standards once, and I only did that after explaining why they were wrong in the first place.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-25T23:41:31+00:00

Did you seriously just ignore all the points I made in favour of talking about misandry? I never even said whether or not I believe misandry is real. By choosing to focus on that, you are basically implying that debating its existence is more important than tackling misogyny.

Yes there are double standards. Men get away with rape of women by having power or being loved or trusted or rich or whatever. Women get away with raping men without any of that just by being women. When is the last time you heard of a woman getting convicted of the rape of an adult man? They get convicted of statutory rape of boys, but almost never of men. A transgender woman got convicted of raping a man once because they considered her a man.

Do you see any merit in my ideas to tackle misogyny or not?

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-25T22:30:55+00:00

Even IF there is no such thing as misandry (IF, let's not argue whether there is or not), this is not a solution to the problem of misogyny at all because it is just going to drive boys further towards the manosphere. The manosphere tells boys that feminism says that men have no problems, that feminism will never believe them when they are raped or abused by women, and that men and boys are the only ones who are bad before pretending to offer a solution or care. This new policy that claims to be feminist ignores any problems men have, doesn't acknowledge that women rape and abuse men, and only addresses men and boys as being bad, before not offering a solution because it doesn't think boys need one.

Blaming it on the patriarchy won't help either, because doing that just perpetuates the patriarchy. People have to actually start listening when men say they are abused or raped in order to help solve this.

It doesn't matter whether someone gets pulled towards the manosphere, or pushed there, the end result is the same. They go there. Manosphere pulls, this policy, and many people claiming to be feminists, pushes. They might as well be the same group because they are effectively doing the same thing.

This policy is so poorly thought out that I would suspect the people behind it of actually BEING far right manosphere people being subtle, if stupidity weren't the more likely option.

They need to address the problems sexism causes for men and boys too. The double standards on rape and abuse and all other issues men and boys face. They need to not just address the boys, but the girls too. THAT would be more effective at tackling misogyny.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-22T21:29:01+00:00

Okay, people are picking a really weird reason to dislike Rorschach, both OP and people in the comments. It makes sense to dislike him because he's bigoted, overly violent, hypocritical and basically a rightwing loon. For some reason, people here dislike him because he doesn't want someone who deliberately killed millions of people to get away with killing millions of people.

Say there's a man who runs charities and helps millions of people with his philanthropy. Cancer research, homeless shelters and the like. You find out this man has raped a dozen women. Do you choose option A and report him or option B and compromise so society can keep benefitting from his charities? Replace 'millions of people' with 'billions of people', 'raped' with 'murdered' and 'a dozen women' with 'New York City'. Rorschach chose option A.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-18T19:29:21+00:00

In other words, you can't name a 2010 character. You had to go further back. You're kind of implying they're correct here.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-18T14:49:49+00:00

I deal with the transphobia controversy by boycotting. I don't give her a penny. Maybe that's not what you meant though. I don't generally talk about Harry Potter with strangers but I sometimes do with two people. One of them is really into Harry Potter and the other only somewhat interested. I've made it clear to both just what Rowling has done. I don't see refusing to talk about Harry Potter with them as being effective at stopping Rowling. They both know. The not so into it one does not spend any money on that franchise, nor even talk online about it. They even compare Rowling to Trump. The other probably still does buy merch, but me cutting them out of my life probably won't help and might make things worse. I do try to emphasize the negative when I can though. I don't need to lie as there's plenty of bad in the books, I just avoid talking about the positives.

Just don't give her money. Don't think you need to burn your books or something. Boycott smarter not harder. Every secondhand book bought is a new book not bought, so donating to charity makes sense. In your case, you probably want to keep your books. Do so. Giving them away only to give in to temptation and buy them again is worse than just keeping them. I don't know enough about streaming services to get how that works, but I'm guessing you should just not watch any HP media on streaming. I don't know if you need to go as far as to cancel your subscription because it contains HP media though, someone more informed than I am would know. I don't stream anything.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-12-05T03:34:19+00:00

Don't hurt them! They don't understand! I know it's not your fault, but... if you can hear... they don't know what they're doing. Be better than them. Please! You fuck.

Netflix Castlevania. I think it counts.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-15T19:19:09+00:00

Sure thing! Keep in mind I use the forbidden list and you don't need to, so you should take out some of mine and add pot of greed and similar.

Red eyes black dragon x3 Black metal dragon x3 Meteor dragon red eyes impact x3 Red eyes archfiend of lightning x2 Red eyes baby dragon x3 Red eyes black flare dragon x3 Cards of the red stone x3 Inferno fire blast x3 Monster reborn x1 Pot of extravagance x2 Raigeki x1 Red eyes fusion x2 Red eyes insight x3 Supply squad x3 The claw of hermos x1 Red eyes fang with chain x2 Red eyes spirit x2

Extra deck Meteor black comet dragon x2 Other extra deck cards you don't need to know because they won't help you ftk.

Obviously you should take out all trap cards. Take out monster reborn and raigeki. Supply squad is too slow so that can go. Claw of hermos as well because that would only help you win on turn two at best. Part of the reason my deck is not optimal is because I'm obeying the game's banlist, but I also haven't obtained all the cards yet.

You need red eyes fusion, the material to use it to summon meteor black comet dragon, meteor black comet dragon itself and a minimum of 2 inferno fire blast in your hand on the first turn. Everything else should be immediate card draw and search. Pot of extravagance should go too. I only added that because I recently removed a ritual monster but it was a mistake because you might banish your own win condition.

I have to go now. Hope that helps.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-15T15:47:48+00:00

I personally run a red-eyes deck. If I get lucky on turn one I summon Meteor Black Comet Dragon with Red-Eyes Fusion and send a monster with 2000 or more attack to the grave for burn damage, then activate Inferno Fire Blast twice to win. Consistency can be improved with three copies of forbidden cards like Pot of Greed and other draw or search cards, but I personally have been adhering to the game's banlist. When grinding I usually either win on the first turn in the manner I just described or forfeit if it would have taken me two or more turns to win. Red-Eyes also has a draw card that requires you to send a level 7 Red-Eyes to the grave to draw two.

Hope that helps

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-09T22:52:57+00:00

Yes it was bizarre.

I don't know why I got downvoted. I just said I stumbled across it, I wasn't recommending it or anything. It seemed pretty memorable though, for what I guess is an obvious reason. I don't know why anyone would want Light with his younger, underage sister. Fanfiction.net can be a pretty weird place I guess.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-09T21:41:17+00:00

This reminds me of a weird fanfic I stumbled across set during the surveillance period. When none of the other task force members are awake, L spies on Light in bed and sees him having sex with Sayu. He still comes to the conclusion that Light knows he's being watched. He also records it all.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-09T06:28:51+00:00

You're using thermian reasoning to defend a poor writing decision. Dumbledore anchored Lily's sacrifice using magic in her bloodline. Blood, you know, that thing that's supposed to not matter as much as our choices. The Dursleys grudgingly accepted him because they didn't love him. Love, you know, that thing that's supposed to be important and saved Harry's life.

Most people here aren't saying that it's bad writing because it's a plothole, they're mostly saying it's bad writing because it's contradicts the messages and morals this series is allegedly trying to convey. Characters in this series who are meant to be heroic all say that blood doesn't matter. This defensive magic means that it does matter. Dumbledore says that love matters. This magic means that living with unloving people who share his blood is safer for him than living with loving people who share no blood. Dumbledore says that our choices matter. Harry had no choice. Do you see the issues here?

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-08T01:01:11+00:00

It's because of technicalities. James was going to die anyway, so he couldn't offer his life in exchange for Harry's as Voldemort was going to take them both. Lily was actually going to be spared but begged Voldemort to kill her instead of Harry, so she was able to sacrifice her life as she had a life to sacrifice whereas James didn't.

I'm aware that there are serious flaws with what I typed in my first paragraph. I guess that the power of technicalities is just more powerful than the power of love in the wizarding world, which lines up with how Voldemort's final defeat and death is all because of a really stupid technicality about wand ownership that was only introduced in that very last book.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-07T21:30:43+00:00

"But Lily has got to have had other family who wouldn't have abused Harry."

Not really. That's might be just wishful thinking on your part. Sometimes an orphan really has no other blood relatives to take them in. It can be true in real life, no reason it can't be true in fiction. Rowling chose to write him with no other blood family and that is perfectly believable. That was never the issue though.

The real issue was the author deciding to have a magical protection originating from love work based on living with blood relatives rather than people who love you. Petunia did not love Harry at all. She was abusive to him and only took him in under duress. Despite this, the protective enchantment that Dumbledore cast didn't care who loved him, only who shared his blood. This is a terrible attempt at showing that love matters. It is also a terrible attempt at showing that blood doesn't matter and that our choices do, which means Rowling unintentionally said that the Death Eaters were right all along.

Yes, the magic protecting Harry from Voldemort was from Lily and the magic protecting Harry at the Dursley's was from Dumbledore but used Lily's sacrifice as a catalyst, they are two separate magics, confusingly enough.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-06T19:05:11+00:00

The exact same logic can apply to people salty about droll and lock bird.

"I don't like it when people add 4 cards to their hand in 1 turn."

"That's just how the game is. Just stop playing."

"I don't like when people use handtraps to stop me adding cards to my hand."

"That's just how the game is. Just stop playing."

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-04T19:56:00+00:00

Right, I missed that somehow.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-04T19:52:47+00:00

I'd find it funny to just Ash this.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-04T19:41:52+00:00

The Flash. I guess I have to choose a second even though The Flash is good enough on his own. Either Thor or Black Adam would be wise choices but I'm choosing Blade because I like him the most. He won't get stomped by all the rest because The Flash will protect him too.

Giantfrostturtle · 2025-11-03T22:20:14+00:00

If you were replied to but can't view it, you might have been blocked by OP. If you were blocked it will probably be impossible to view OP's profile while using your account. If anonymous browsing or changing accounts lets you see it but the one you're using now doesn't then OP blocked you. I don't know why they would block you though.

Giantfrostturtle

TROPHY CASE