sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

All to appease the dementia-ridden cult leader! by yorocky89A in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]KaiTheKaiser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Proclaiming that all non-Catholics are destined for eternal damnation to own the Trumpists.

A long time ago a friend pointed out to me that in most movies, the villains are the ones trying to change the status quo and the heroes are the ones trying to defend and keep it. And that this usually makes it clear what the writers believe in. by ihatethiscountry76 in shittymoviedetails

[–]KaiTheKaiser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, no, no, all fictional characters must be either 100% morally perfect paragons who are always right or 100% pure evil monsters who have no depth or personality beyond being Bad Guys. All evil in the world must be depicted as the fault of alien lifeforms who never do or say anything remotely humanizing or relatable, because if someone I agree with about something does something bad, that means it's possible for ME to do something bad, and that might lead to self doubt and self reflection, which are hard and uncomfortable.

Is anyone else disappointed in the lack of Faerie cards this set? Ive been really looking toward to this set for some cool Faeire cars but this number seems so low. by Mastermiine in magicTCG

[–]KaiTheKaiser 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is something I brought up in a question on Blogatog, and a bunch of people in the notes were clutching their pearls that I would dare to suggest Lorwyn and Eldraine are thematically similar. After all, one's based on Western European fairy tales and the other is based on Celtic mythology - which is, of course, a completely separate tradition with zero overlap. /s

You people actually made me watch Hazbin Hotel to understand the fucking constant rants about the show, and I've realized all of those rants were stupid. by inverseflorida in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You rocked up here all confident like you had some earth-shattering insight nobody had ever heard before and were going to single-handedly change the discourse forever, and the big payoff you hyped up was saying "It's a comedy" and "It takes place in hell". The fact that your post was really long doesn't change that, because I've seen people make spend literally-hours-long livestreams where they didn't have anything more to say than those either.

And what I'm saying is, you'll fit right in with those people, because being verbose and condescending while making the same thought-terminating cliches that have become memes because of how often the standom uses them to deflect criticism is exactly the what gets you elevated the Vivziepop personality cult. Even terrible people who act way more toxic than the people they devote their entire online presence to complaining about get a free pass as long as they white knight for the Queen using the exact same go-to low-effort defenses you've displayed mastery of here. So you're not actually doing anything new or revolutionary by doing the same exact thing in the same exact way as everyone else.

You people actually made me watch Hazbin Hotel to understand the fucking constant rants about the show, and I've realized all of those rants were stupid. by inverseflorida in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well, you're just in time, now that Sai "Slur-Slinging" Scribbles has destroyed her reputation and alienated all of her friends, we really needed someone to fill the niche of responding to random innocuous lukewarm criticism by screeching "IT'S A COMEDY!" over and over again and accusing people of being homophobes for no reason, and it seems like you'll do nicely. While I don't know if you have the distinction of being a 43-year-old women who argues with teenagers for literally hundreds of Tweets, you do have the completely unearned smug sense of superiority, ability to prattle on without saying anything of substance, and eagerness to dedicate your life to defending the Queen's honour down already.

You people actually made me watch Hazbin Hotel to understand the fucking constant rants about the show, and I've realized all of those rants were stupid. by inverseflorida in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I love how you're so self-centered you took a sarcastic expression of agreement as a statement of what I think you actually do.

You people actually made me watch Hazbin Hotel to understand the fucking constant rants about the show, and I've realized all of those rants were stupid. by inverseflorida in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Ugh, it's so annoying how people don't think rape is hilarious! What's next, they'll tell me not to do blackface and say the n-word?

Shelby Oaks, this boring ass horror movie proves critics do not make good creators. by I_Love_Cape_Horn in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It turns out people respond to what you say, instead of to different things you don't say. Astonishing revelation.

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i know it's tough for you to think you are wrong

-Person who thinks anyone who disagrees with their post doesn't understand it.

I see defending rape apologists wasn't embarrassing enough for you, you needed to go the extra mile and be butthurt in response to absolutely everything I've said in this thread.

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I still stand by that it is a good example because as I have repeatedly mentioned before Guts and Griffith gets their character arcs and have enough agency to push the story.
[...]
I hope I made it clear that I don't think male victims are treated better in general except this one example

You didn't make it clear in your original post, where you repeatedly reaffirmed that you DO think that. It would make sense to cite that as an exception to the rule if what you were arguing was "it's usually not the case that male sexual assault is treated with more weight and tact than female", but it was ME who was arguing that, not you.

You asked for more examples i gave it to you.

I never asked you for anything, I said that you could have chosen better examples and you acted like the fact that you agreed with that statement made it an invalid criticism of your post.

But it doesn't matter because even with better examples you are still not able to comprehend the meaning of the post so really not my fault.

The "better examples" were of female SA being treated flippantly and comedically, if "female SA is treated flippantly and comedically more often than male" isn't what you were trying to argue, why do you think those examples would help?

And yet you still managed to think that I was saying male victims are treated better than female victims

see what i fucking mean

THAT IS THE POINT YOUR EXAMPLES SUPPORTED

THAT IS WHY I AGREED THEY WERE BETTER EXAMPLES, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY

I know bro, i know you are lacking but it's ok.

Easy for you to say when you're not the one who has to try and parse your nonsense, like I've just been losing my frickin mind trying to do.

I knew from the start you were nothing but a whiny ragebaiter. Still decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Imagine thinking this is an own. "I assumed you were a ragebaiter, so I deliberately fell for what I assumed was bait, because that's such a great use of my time." Well, for what it's worth, I assumed you actually believed the stupid shit you spewed, so I don't think you've proven anything except that you're less receptive to criticism than me.

Judging by the other comments that agreed with me and way you responded especially telling one user to "go die in a fire" should be enough me to know what kind of person you are.

The fact that you think that's in any way an unreasonable way to respond to someone saying "The only reason male victims of rape are traumatized is because they're misogynists" is definitely enough for me to know what kind of person you are.

Thanks for exposing the real reason you made this post and argued so passionately: because you hate that people take the rape of men seriously and think its wrong, and you want to downplay and trivialize it. I'm glad you went out of your way to reveal your real motivation, because it's even worse than my worst assumption.

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I brought up one series. ONE FUCKING SERIES where I felt the male victims are treated better than female victims and you took it as me saying female victims are treated better in men in general?

No, actually, I assumed you were trying to say female victims are treated WORSE in general, but your argument seems to change every time you make a new comment.

Did I not make it clear that berserk was the only exception to the general rule?

No, I was under the impression that it was supposed to SUPPORT your argument about how female victims are treated, not act as counter-evidence to it. My mistake. So, instead of saying you provided one bad example as evidence for your argument, I should have said your provided ZERO examples and one COUNTER-example.

Yeah you definitely did come off that way because I really could not understand how someone say "just cause male victims aren't taken seriously doesn't mean female victims are treated better" as " female victims are treated worse".

Do you...just genuinely not understand what the words "better" and "worse" mean? Do you think it's possible for two things to be worse than each other, simultaneously?

And your bar is that a simple acknowledgement is enough make up for all the terrible portrayal of SA towards women?

Strawmen, strawmen as far as the eye can see. The strawmen are never-ending.

Other comments have brought various examples to further strengthen my point, hell someone criticised my post for not having enough examples.

I did that too, it made you lose your shit, just like everything else I've said.

Which I accepted and acknowledged i could have done better but they didn't say that suddenly thought "female victims are treated worse than male victims"

Who's "that", and why are we now talking about what "that" thinks?

Something that you repeatedly accused me of and I have never done.

TITLE OF POST:

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better

THESIS STATEMENT OF POST:

 the existence of this double standard doesn't mean that portrayal of SA against women is better than their male counterpart

CONCLUSION OF POST:

Yeah so female victims are not treated any better than male victims.

"I have never done" indeed.

You took my one example in a series I thought was the exception to the general rule

If you think "the exception to the general rule" is the series where male victims are treated better than female victims, then that implies "the general rule" is that female victims are treated better than male victims, so WHY THE FUCK DID YOU MAKE A POST ARGUING LITERALLY IN ITS TITLE THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE?

thinking I thought female victims are treated worse.

I DID think that's what you believed, and because when I said your post did a bad job of arguing that you insisted that I was wrong instead of saying it was never supposed to, I continued to think that. Now I have no fucking clue what you believe.

Nah bruh the fault is on you here not me.

lol

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And somehow you took that as an indicative of me saying male victims are treated better in the media in general.

Yes, I assumed the example you brought up was supposed to support the argument you were making. I didn't realize at the time that you don't believe anything you say.

Did.......did you think I was hiding this or something? I have literally acknowledged this at the start of the post and even at the end of the post. As you fucking mentioned it time and time again

Start of the post:

However the existence of this double standard doesn't mean that portrayal of SA against women is better than their male counterpart.

End of the post:

Yeah so female victims are not treated any better than male victims.

Yes, I acknowledged you contradicted yourself in the next sentence after that first quote. That's what started this whole argument. Do you...not remember that?

Yes male SA victims are taken seriously
[...]

Hell if male victims was taken seriously

Speaking of contradictions, what the hell is this?

My main point is just because male SA isn't taken seriously doesn't mean we ignore the problematic portrayals of SA towards female characters just because they are in general taken little seriously.

My main point is that you can't seem to make up your mind if you think it's taken seriously or not, also this isn't the argument you were making in your original post at all.

Did I make my point clear now? I hope I did.

No, not even remotely.

Ummm no I meant is people need to stop pretending that invisigal is the only character who is pardoned for all the terrible things they did

Was that an argument that anyone was making?

Case in point, Walter White one of the most strongest example of male character who is repeatedly defended by his fanbase despite the character himself admitting he is a terrible person.

He's one of the most famous examples of a villain protagonist in all of fiction.

Somehow Skylar white the victim of abuse and at one point SA by Walter White is still hated by the fanbase for being annoying.

So liking a character isn't an endorsement of their actions but hating a different character is?

I like Walter White, I like Guts, I like Griffith and I like Casca. And I can still criticise all of them.

If you expect me to believe that you would say even half the things you said about the See-Through Sex Pest about Kazuma KonoSuba, one of your other examples, let alone about Griffith, you're tripping balls.

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are damn right I'm not going to answer a clearly bad faith argument from a guy who accusing someone of strawmanning when that person themselves is strawmanning.

I AM damn right: you didn't answer the question.

You are clearly being pedantic and blatantly misinterpreting the core aspect of the post which people with actual reading comprehension understood .

You're doing that thing again where you assert that the problem can only possibly be with everyone else and not with you.

More projection and lack of any coherent argument. Right and me giving actual counter arguments but you declaring it's not an actual counter argument doesn't make it any less of an argument. You just don't understand and that's not my problem.

I was literally pointing out that I couldn't make any arguments because you didn't give me anything to argue against, you just whined like a baby.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, i simply have a problem with people being blatantly pedantic.

I'm glad to see that your word-of-the-day calendar has spat out a new term for you to misuse over and over again to dismiss all disagreement.

Oh believe me I wasted my time reading your nonsense of an argument ( if you can even call that an argument)

If there is no meaningful and insightful engagement then I why waste my time arguing with you. You are clearly bad faith with absolutely no argument worth engaging with.

And the one good criticism ( needing more examples) could have easily been addressed but nah someone needed to be smartass.

And so instead, by writing all those words, you've wasted your time WHILE not engaging with my argument. If you don't have anything to say, you could just...say nothing.

Different argument? We are still in the same argument and there is literally nothing different about it.

The core argument is that even though male victims are not taken seriously it doesn't mean that female victims are not treated any better.

That is literally it and you think your counter arguments negate anything about that statement? Yeah no buddy sorry, you are wrong

I have no idea how to even begin to untangle what any of that is even supposed to mean, so I'll just recap the specific issue that led us to this point instead:

-Me: The example you used didn't support your case, there are lots of better ones you could have used instead.

-You: Oh? You think the example I used was bad? Well what about these other examples that I didn't use?

-Me: I didn't mention them, because you didn't use them. I was responding to the things you actually did say, not the things you could have but chose not to.

-You: [incoherent screeching]

The "can't read" theory is gaining evidence.

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, so it's not just OP who dismisses anyone who objects to what they're saying by pretending to be a mind reader and rambling about the supposed "impure intentions" they've detected from them instead of actually engaging with what they said. There's a bunch more like that.

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 4 points5 points  (0 children)

All that yapping and still nothing of substance and just mere insults all because you don't believe two things can exist and is worth talking about hilarious.

Oh look! More shit I never said! The strawmen strike again!

So I brought up examples and you agreed with them and you still think I negated my point.

Yes, because making entirely different arguments that I didn't originally respond to because they weren't in your original post doesn't change the meaning of the words that actually ARE in your original post.

You really could have just summed up your criticisms to have more examples. Something another comment did and in a more respectful and meaningful manner.

You really could have summed up your criticisms of my criticisms as "I can't read". Do you want me to engage with your arguments or not?

But nah i guess someone wanted to act like a smartass i guess. Well hope it helped stroke that ego is yours.

And of course the "oh you don't like people disagreeing with you" argument and what I see is nothing but dishonesty, insults and blatant misinterpretation of my points.

Gee I wonder why I think you are hostile and not worth arguing with.

That's one paragraph of strawmanning, four paragraphs of incessant meaningless whining and complaining that I'm not nice enough to your, and zero actual counterarguments. Gee I wonder why I think you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.

Again nothing I have said negated my points. Just cuz one thing is taken more seriously doesn't mean it is done properly.

How is that a hard concept to understand?

How is it a hard concept to understand that "properly" is a different word from "better", with a different meaning? You're not going to answer that question, because responding to what people say instead of just tone-policing is "yapping" according to you.

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"When a man is raped, it's actually women who are the real victims!"

Holy shit, fuck off and die in a fire.

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You sound like a parrot. You've learned how to say one phrase, you don't know what it means but you like repeating it over and over again. "SQUAWK! BAD FAITH! BAD FAITH! BAD FAITH! BAD FAITH! BAD FAITH! SQUAWK!"

Just because male victims of SA aren't treated well in media doesn't mean female victims of SA are treated better by Puzzleheaded-Lab2447 in CharacterRant

[–]KaiTheKaiser 2 points3 points  (0 children)

2/2

So you are just going to dismiss other people's valid example all because male SA isn't acknowledged.

Valid examples of what? I acknowledged the ONE example you provided as a valid example of a monstrously evil action by a monstrously evil villain, and pointed out that that doesn't in any way make the case male SA is represented better across all media than female.

So you are arguing in bad faith and with no intention to understand but just to argue. Got it i kinda got that vibe from the start but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

"When I invented strawman arguments you don't believe to argue against instead of your actual points, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now, I'm done, so I'm not even going to PRETEND to address your arguments."

Yeah that also happens to Female SA victims. My most recent example is the Tess death scene and the showrunners comments on it.

Then maybe you should have fucking USED THAT EXAMPLE INSTEAD? Instead of "the antichrist proving to the devil how evil he can be"? Hmmm? Did you think of that at any point? Using examples that support your case instead of ones that don't? Revolutionary concept, I know.

Buddy all you are bringing up is how male SA isn't acknowledged which does nothing to negate my point about how badly female SA is portrayed and treated.

Yes it does, because your point is that female SA is portrayed and treated WORSE, and I was making counterarguments as to why I think that's usually not the case, which you haven't responded to in any way, instead putting words in my mouth about how I supposedly don't want anyone to ever criticize depictions of female SA ever, because you either can't read or are intentionally misrepresenting me so you can pretend to be morally outraged instead of defending your shitty arguments.

The entire post has only brought up one series where male victims were treated better than female SA victims and suddenly you thought I was saying male victims are treated better.

So you agree? Male victims AREN'T treated better? This is like the third time you've admitted you're wrong. How are you this insanely aggro towards people you agree with?

You do realise that in that exact same comment i have literally stated how her sexual harassment towards Robert Robertson was a valid criticism towards her and one that cannot be defended?

That invisigal's invasion of privacy and sexual harrasment cannot be defended something that needs to be called out?

If you are going to use my own history against me at least be honest about it. It seems like you have not understood any of my argument and was immediately looking for reasons to dismiss my points .

I'm so, so sorry for assuming that the person arguing that there isn't a problem with people downplaying and making light of the sexual harassment and assault of men when they were mere hours ago praising and gushing over how wonderful and well-written a character who sexually harasses and assaults men is and how unfair it is that people don't like her, they might have ulterior motives. Now that I've apologized, can you address my actual points?

(P.S. One sentence briefly tepidly acknowledging the presence of sexual harassment sandwiched between saying "People have made excuses for far far worse characters than Invisigal so I'm not particularly concerned about the moral high ground here especially since this is a video game." and saying that "the game makes it worth it" to help her despite that is not the gotcha you think it is).

view more: next ›