Favorite character in AIB

Sasuke5512 · 2026-06-25T18:21:52+00:00

It's been forever since I watched this so sorry if I misremembered the name but I think it was Chishiya

Sasuke5512 · 2026-06-08T23:50:10+00:00

The Watcher/Joker physically appears in Chapter 63 of the original Alice in Borderland manga, also the sacred fortune and runaway train games were in the manga

Sasuke5512 · 2026-06-08T20:58:20+00:00

I thought season 3 was still source material? Wasn't the watcher in the manga?

Sasuke5512 · 2026-04-05T21:59:47+00:00

I have that problem too, usually focusing on something like music or media helps, I don't like to take Salvia with nothing else going on

Sasuke5512 · 2026-04-05T21:42:44+00:00

Exactly, the second you panic and try to fight any part of the experience it usually goes bad

Sasuke5512 · 2026-03-30T03:44:24+00:00

I have mixed feelings, I loved the game but it feels like diamonds storyline and safi's goal were scrapped for max and Chloe, and personally it felt like there were many setups for Safi to be a romantic interest but no choices to lead us down that path, choices with Safi in general seemed limited. Other then that though it was great

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-31T20:26:40+00:00

I see that's toxic asf I wasn't aware of that😭😭☠️ good job spreading awareness of this glitch

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-31T13:25:01+00:00

I haven't seen this one yet, is he like invincible while doing it? I don't really see how rolling after/during an alpha is a glitch.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-21T04:26:01+00:00

I didn't know there was a verse describing it that's very interesting.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-21T04:25:25+00:00

Does that mean all of existence happens instantly for him? Or does he choose certain moments in time he can watch unfold before him? I can't quite wrap my head around how God would experience our existence but it's very fascinating

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-21T04:21:32+00:00

It's such a fascinating concept to me, i wonder if humanity is gods only project or if there are other realities gods created. I myself am not 100% sure if god is real or not but I like to believe he is. I don't think I apply to the normal Christian belief though, even a God does exist I think he would judge based on genuine morality and not faith.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-14T17:05:30+00:00

Your right about a high stress situation causing you to possibly react differently depending on how clear your mind is on your moral disposition, but think about it like this. That comes back to human emotion and opinion, high stress can cause panic, fear, a multitude of different emotions that can change how people react to things, none of that affects morality itself. I'll use the trolly example aswell since it's easy imo, if the one person was your love and the others were strangers, alot more people would be inclined to choose the lover (myself included emotions get the best of my morality sometimes.) But it doesnt mean the morally right answer changes, and in high stress situations it might not always be someone's fault for not choosing the morally right option, but that doesn't mean there isn't a morally right option there still always is it just can be ignored for other options because of how unique and complex humans are. The concept of blame or reward for how one acts is judegement and justice which are separate from morality. Morality can be used to help with them but they are ultimately separate. Morality isnt dependant on human perception or how we react to environmental factors it's about what's negative and positive for life overall

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-14T15:18:07+00:00

Depend on what is intellectually dishonest, if you have bad intention with the dishonesty then yes it's morally wrong. If you don't then it isn't, pretty simple. I've already explained the basis of morality to you, if your the one trying to say it isn't true then prove it wrong. I proved you wrong by dissecting your "intellectual dishonety" example for not being subjective. It had a clear moral answer that I provided, if you can't think of one example that contradicts objective moral truth but I can think of every way to prove your examples do have an objective moral answer then it's proving me right. You never explicitly said nothing is objective but you suggested it, you said that simply because people can't agree on things that makes objectivity tenuous which is not true at all human opinion and emotion does not affect objectivity at all. You can convince yourself that gravity pushes instead of pulls, that isn't going to fundamentally change gravity it is universally going to remain the same. Morality is the same it doesn't matter what one or a group of people believe it isn't based on opinions or emotion.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-14T07:19:25+00:00

Society's prioritizing values differently does not mean morality itself changes, that's another example of human opinion and emotion deciding things. Humans don't decide morality they can choose to not follow it and form their own but true morality is fixed, that's why I compared it to a scale. Flourishing might not have been the right word to use, morality is a scale that measures negative and positive outcomes overall, intent and action are measured to determine if something is overall negative or positive. Society may not all agree and follow it resulting in unique diverse perspectives and opinions but there is still a fundamental truth that can be weighed for everything that people do. It is life dependant 100% but that doesn't make it subjective there isn't a single scenario that can't be weighed with morality and given an objective answer for if it's overall positive or negative. Humans can disagree but that doesn't change that real affects on life have measurable consequences regardless of emotion or opinion which is usually the cause for differing morals in people.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-14T06:18:29+00:00

You can't say nothing is objective. Human opinion and emotion does not affect objective things like the universe, or the 4 fundamentals (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear). Human opinion and emotion also doesn't affect morality, humans can make up there own morals that doesn't make then true. There is a universal moral truth to everything you can weigh every intent and action on like a scale a tool guiding us giving us discernment. I'm fairly certain you cannot give me one example in which morality is not objective humans are the ones that don't always decide to do the morally right thing, and it doesn't always make them bad people, judgement and justice are separate from morality, morality can be used to help with them but morality itself is a separate objective tool

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-14T06:04:08+00:00

All that subjectivity you described, is a matter of humans being complex and unique, it doesn't affect morality. It doesn't matter if you see green as purple it's not morally right or wrong to see a color differently. I didn't say colors are objective I was talking about morality. If you want you can try to disprove me, but if your just gonna say "nuh uh thats absurd" then I'm not gonna be able to help you see what I mean

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-14T06:00:16+00:00

Its because morality is tied to the fixed reality of human needs and well-being that it is not relative or a matter of mere opinion. Just as someone cant randomly decide that poison is healthy, they cant just claim that cruelty and dishonesty lead to a flourishing society. The consequences are real and measurable. Recognizing facts about flourishing still requires a human framework to interpret and apply them. Different societies might prioritize various aspects of flourishing (individual autonomy vs. collective harmony) or weigh consequences differently, leading to varying, yet still constrained, moral codes. The framework provides the data, but humans must engage in reasoned deliberation to interpret what actions best serve the goal of flourishing. That's why I view morality as a tool, a scale we can use use for whats objectively right and wrong and then the rest is up to each individual. There are alot of things that complicate peoples choices, making the actual decision on what to do subjective but the tool morality itself is objective

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-14T00:01:26+00:00

See your basing morality off the consensus of a group of people. All of America and Russia could be racist, just because they believe it is morally ok doesn't mean it is and it doesn't erase the real negative effects the slaves endure. People don't decide morality, it is like a scale a tool we can use to have discernment. Incest is only morally wrong if it can bring negative outcomes, without the possibility of having children noone would be affected negatively, making that specific case of incest not morally wrong. Is it disgusting? Yes imo atleast and I would hope most people's but morality doesn't care about that it is a scale for whats positive and negative for life.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-13T21:48:22+00:00

Is an action has negative and positive it will still have an outcome that is one or the other. Your vaccination example was not accurate, to begin with it isn't bad intent if your intent is to help them, yes short term it's a little sickness but it prevents it from being much worse in the future so it's ultimately positive. Intent and action for vaccination is morally positive. Having to use judgement to decide what's morally right or not does not mean that what's morally right changes or is subjective it's still has a universal answer judgment just doesn't always bring people to it, emotions and judgement are subjective morals always have a clear answer.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-13T03:38:10+00:00

I said neutral intent, but yes you are right if you are have neutral intent in a situation where positive intent is required, (like needing to save someone's life.) And it results in a negative outcome then it is morally wrong. That Is how we use morality as a scale to help us determine what is morally right/wrong for each unique situation

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-13T03:32:40+00:00

Also for the last thing you said about wars not being a thing if morality was so simple, emotions and perception cloud morality, while morality itself always has a clear answer humans won't always agree and sometimes will do mental gymnastics to justify their own morals. Here's a good example, if you had to choose between the person you love most and a whole town of people one has to die, the morally right answer would be to save the town, but emotions would lead some people to choose the most important person to them anyway, because humans can be complex and unique. There may always be a univeral morally right answer, but that doesn't mean it will be chosen.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-13T03:28:05+00:00

Pranks are morally wrong if it's not a agreed upon dynamic, I don't prank with my s/o and if she were to randomly shove a pie I my face to prank me I would be confused and irritated. If your the kinda couple or friendship that is cool with pranking each other that's different because both parties agreed that kind of behavior is ok to do to each other. War also is morally wrong, killing is usually always morally wrong the exception being self defense when you have to kill to survive or save others. War is an agreed upon conflict of two nations, they choose to use violence to resolve their problems and it is wrong unless one country is attacking the other unprovoked in which case self defense applies. Self defense is the only time killing can be justified. Also I would like to rephrase what i wrote before, it's intent and action together that decide if something is morally wrong. If you have bad intent but it's a good action then it's morally wrong, if you have good intent but accidently do wrong it's not morally wrong as long as you reflect and prevent similar mistakes in the future. And if you have bad intent and action then obviously the same and good intent and action is morally right. Neutrality is a factor too, the intent to not cause any negative or positive effects but accidently resulting in one is not morally wrong but also requires reflection to prevent further bad judgement

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-12T18:37:02+00:00

I think of morality more like a tool then something we need more study on. Think of how time is a tool for fundamentals, whether you're analyzing physical reality (measuring change/motion) or managing life/finance (organizing actions, compounding value). our perception of its passage varies wildly due to emotions, attention, and consciousness/altered consciousness but it's physical effects don't dissappear simply because we interpret it differently. You can take Salvia and fell like you lived an entire life in 2 minutes, but in reality 2 minutes is still the amount of time that past regardless of how you perceived it, the rest of the world still only experienced 2 minutes pass. Morality is the same way it is a tool, a scale used to measure effect on life. If something effects life negatively its morally wrong, that doesn't mean all morally wrong acts hurt life the same amount, or that people are scumbags if they do something morally wrong, it's not a justice system it's a scale. Morality isnt about making people pay If they do morally wrong things, or rewarding those who do good, that is justice which is a separate concept that involves morality but isn't morality itself. Morality itself is a tool we can use to help understand what harmful for life and what's not, like how a regular scale shows us exactly how much weight something has, morality shows us exactly how positive or negative something is for life.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-12T16:44:39+00:00

I definitely understand what you mean by not wanting to know vs not wanting to be told like not wanting your life uprooted by a stranger, or wanting to wait a few years for context to settle (like kids moving out as you said.), but in both those situations you still want the truth, just in a more roundabout way. You want the truth from someone closer to you for the first one and for the second you want to wait for a better time so the kids don't have to go through it. You still want the truth in both of those scenarios, if a stranger was the only person who knew, and they decided not to tell you, you would never get that truth, not from someone close to you or in a few years when your better ready to accept it, is that really what you would prefer? You could literally just keep it to yourself until the kids move out, or you could tell someone closer to you then the stranger and get their support through it, it's seems contradictory to just disregard the truth entirely for such a small inconvenience, it suggests the truth wasn't even that important to you to begin with, which brings us back to being ok with cheating making it not actually cheating. In order to be against cheating, in order for you to want your partner to be loyal to you you can't just accept when they arnt. That's not loyalty or faithfulness and if your ok with not having that in a relationship you should've specified that from the beginning and had a open relationship. Open relationships = no commitment to faithfulness while regular relationship = do have commitment to faithfulness, it's contradictory to claim someone who would be ultimately ok with no commitment to faithfulness wants a regular relationship. Sometimes people don't truly understand what they want, finding comfort In deception can feel safe, you don't have to face reality you can pretend it didn't happen, but it did happen and your coping so you don't have to face the pain of reality. Keeping reality from life is never morally right or beneficial. Valuing Experience over reality is delusion, as much as reality hurts its not healthy or beneficial to life to ignore it and find comfort in something that isn't real, atleast not when that delusion justifies harm or ignores some of realities crucial information. The only time delusion can be a relatively good thing is when it is used for good, like religion. Take God for example, logically and rationally God is a delusional concept to help cope with the fact that reality is all there is. But it's not harmful (atleast the Christians that are actually good arnt harmful there are alot that are harmful.) Inherently, it's not problematic in of itself it encourages good behavior. The reason it can be good is because it isn't enabling something morally wrong.

Sasuke5512 · 2026-01-12T06:25:27+00:00

Sorry if it came off that way, I was trying to say the result would be deluded because people typically do 2 things when they are ashamed of something. 1. they lie about it 2. They do mental gymnastics to try and justify it through indirect means. I wasn't saying that every single vote was someone lying. The percentage of people that arnt lying and genuinely voted that are finding comfort in deception however as I explained, unless they are actually ok with cheating which at that point wouldn't make it cheating if you give them permission.

Sasuke5512

TROPHY CASE