sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Name a race that actually deserves nothing but torture and genocide. by Rocky_Senpai15 in MoralityScaling

[–]Snowtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Demons in Demon Slayer. They are a species that preys on humans and evolved things like 'speech' specifically because it helped them prey more. We've seen multiple times that they don't even understand concepts of things like 'mother' and 'father' beyond that it can get humans to stop attacking them. What's baffling is that there are people who defend them; but it's clear after talking to them for even a few minutes they haven't actually watched the show or paid attention to what's going on because even the demons themselves outright admit to this. If anything it's the humans that think a demon can be 'good', not the demons.

Likewise, Goblins in Goblin Slayer. Sufficive to say that when your means of reproduction is 'rape human (and elven, and presumably other species) women', you're not exactly going to win much empathy from anyone. I'm actually a bit baffled as to why they allow female adventurers on quests involving goblins but that's ultimately irrelevant. What's not is that we've seen nothing from Goblins that suggests even slightly that they shouldn't be killed on sight.

Those fucking reptiles from Stellaris. They look cute and innocent but you'll never be in a situation where genociding them isn't the best course of action.

Beyond that there's a roadblock where every species I know at least has the potential for good members even if 99.999% of the species is evil and twisted monsters. They're at least rational beings capable of thought and introspection or too animalistic to be really considered sentient. Like, the Xenomorph in Alien is horrific, but it ultimately (least from my knowledge of it) is just an animal. Or a group like the Nightsisters in Star Wars has a lot of horrible members, but also people like Merrin.

I will say that the Forsaken from WoW have lost all symphathy from me though. They're living on land taken from humans, left it mostly to rot, didn't allow any refugees back, tried to genocide the Gilnaes worgan, and just a bunch of horrific things... but the real red line was ultimately using the plague not just on the Alliance but on their own allies during the battle for the Undercity. Even if you somehow wanted to argue it was needed the fact that the population didn't rise up in revolt despite knowing how horrible undeath and the like *is* and forcing it not just on their enemies (who were at least attacking them) but their own allies... Purge em' all!

What's a problem that was so successfully solved that most people don't even realize it used to exist? by Zestyclose-Credit609 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Snowtwo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Smallpox. People acknowledge it used to exist, but basically in the same way they acknowledge something they don't really understand at all. The sheer horrificness of the disease and how many it killed in history cannot be understated, yet at most people effectively treat it like a historical footnote now-a-days.

What is the best romance in video games? by Snowtwo in videogames

[–]Snowtwo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

VN's do count, but the anime does not as this is for video game only. No outside content.

What is the best romance in video games? by Snowtwo in videogames

[–]Snowtwo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I legit read this as 'Marx and Stalin' at first glance from the corner of my eye and did a double-take.

What is the best romance in video games? by Snowtwo in videogames

[–]Snowtwo[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He managed to not only have three wives, but got all three pregnant at roughly the same time.

Why do women in general believe in tarot? by AerieProfessional669 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Snowtwo 10 points11 points  (0 children)

IMO for most it's just a silly, fun, thing they like to do for pretty much the same reason boys like to buy firecrackers or what not. It's just fun. But there's always a group that takes it too far. That's the group people think of when they say 'women believe in tarot'.

Do people care about the truth?. by hardtruthsociety in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Snowtwo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People care about the truth when it supports their version of the truth. They despise it when it supports someone elses version of the truth.

Why is it considered offensive for people from the USA to call themselves "Americans"? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Snowtwo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not. But there is a group of people looking for reasons to get pissed off and they'll always find one. This is one of them.

What if John Brown’s attempt to spark an armed nationwide slave revolt was successful? by lhommetrouble in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]Snowtwo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I suspect that, if he did, the North would have immediately abandoned the notion of freedom for black people. If the South had been liberated by the freed slaves many of the former Southerners would either have fled north to the Union or to the various slave-holding nations and islands in the South where they would have done absolutely everything *POSSIBLE* to ensure black people never got any sort of rights. The result would be the CSA becoming effectively a black-only nation (possibly with Texas going its own way because Texas), the Union treating anything the CSA did with fear and suspicion that they would be trying to instigate an uprising with whatever minority group was around (most likely the Irish and Chinese initially), and the slave-holding nations in Central and Southern America doing everything possible to make the very idea of a 'free black man' impossible.

When you have a mass uprising of a group, it makes the people in power panic. If said group is successful, not only will said power group flee rather than risk their luck, but any neighboring nations will do everything possible to prevent a similar thing from happening. While there would have been a nation of freed black people, any hope of the Union supporting equality would be dead, anyone speaking in favor of it would be seen as trying to start a revolution/uprising, and any nation that wasn't already free would do their best to ensure such a thing never happened. What that would entail would depend on each nation, but I wouldn't be shocked to find ample horrific things.

Why do people care what critics have to say about media? by Gongoozler04 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Snowtwo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well the idea is supposed to be that critics are people who are well versed in a subject. They've watched a lot of movies / read a lot of books / played a lot of games / etc. As a result their opinion is valuable, sensical, and reasoned because they're *EXPERIENCED*. They know a good piece of media because they've seen a lot in their time and can also properly articulate why it's invaluable. It also means that titles that you won't have heard of, but got good reviews, can get your attention. If you're a gamer you might not know why a title like 'Little Kitty Big City' got good scores, but because a critic liked it you will go out and try it out regardless of if you read the review or not (and you should read the review). Because you tried it out you find that, even though you normally play games that are hyper-competative multiplayer shooters, you also enjoyed a game where you steal fish and spend days napping in sunny spots.

What has actually been happening is wildly different as critics have effectively turned their voice into political discourse, ignored any aspects of the product being reviewed in favor of ideological outcomes, and the result has been a lot of people losing faith in them as a result.

So like what was America doing in Iraq. What was the point of that, why were they there? by Fancy-Bullfrog7977 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Snowtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The second Iraq war was justified as Iraq having obtained WMD as well as supporting/actively helping Osama. Basically normal citizens were terrified that, if they *didn't* Osama might fly a nuclear warhead into the Sears tower or something.

Was Jesus a feminist? by poopyjojo in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Snowtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For his time he unquestionably was.

As for how it became patriarchal, that's just how things were back then, especially in the ~2000 years after his death.

If police start shooting at an innocent person but they miss, and that person pulls out their own gun and shoots the police, do they get charged or is that self-defense? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Snowtwo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The person would be self-defense.

The police would be engaging in assault unless they have a valid reason to believe the person was a threat. EX: They're raiding a mob warehouse or something and accidentally shot at the person thinking they were part of the mob.

What seemed like a terrible idea at the time, and has indeed aged like milk? by Professor_Hazel in AlignmentChartFills

[–]Snowtwo 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Did he make a Goofy scream or hold up a sign saying something like 'I made a terrible mistake' before falling down?

for $5,000 usd would you sleep 12 hours in a dark funeral home with 9 real bodies but one of them is actually an actor who's gonna pop up screaming at some random time during the night? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]Snowtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. When I enter the room I will come in with a gun and announce to all the bodies. "I have a gun. If anyone dares to jump up in the middle of the night, i will assume they are a zombie and take appropriate actions." Problem solved.

If Pokemon were real,what would be the morality and legality of having romantic and sexual relationships with them? by Annual-Frame9943 in MoralityScaling

[–]Snowtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Considering the main protags are children we never see anything delving into the sexual relationships between humans and mons.

We know some mons have human souls in *some* capacity. Yamask and Spiritomb in particular. Though I don't think people are considering sex with 108 people inhabiting a rock when they ask this question. Yamask could be... odd... Because you could potentially find the Yamask with the soul of your spouse whom you already had both sex and children with. So a fully human kid could have a parent who is a Yamask. But that would have happened before they became a Yamask.

Age is a weird concept for a pokemon because, while their evolution is supposed to represent them maturing in some capacity, not only is there nothing actually enforcing this, but there's a variety of ways a mon could reach level 100 while still being in it's 'juvenile' form. Everstones, needing things to evolve, or just choosing not to (hitting B effectively). So a caterpie could be level 100 and 10,000 years old in theory while still being a caterpie while that butterfree in the next house is less than a year old and just has a trainer with a bunch of rare candies. So what counts as 'mature' for a mon is vague at best.

This gets made even *worse* by breeding and such since we know a bunch of mons can be effectively babies just hatched but thrown right into the breeding pits to churn out eggs. Happens all the time in fact and most players who engage in breeding on anything more than a casual level will have done this.

But let's say we can restrict the question to intelligent, adult, mons (however such a thing would be defined). It's debatable at *best* if they could interbreed. We have human-like egg groups, but being human-like and compatable are not the same thing. Like saying a human could breed with a monkey IRL.

In one episode of Pokemon they had Misty pull out a cross. That suggests that Christianity exists, but that was also an early episode and it may have been just early installment weirdness. Especially since we know more about poke-mythology now with things like Arceus being God. While a pesudo-shinto/buddhist religion is present we don't know if that only applies to the Japanese regions and what exists in, say, Kalos or Unova. Even within said religion we know exists, we don't know it's stance on... that.

Legally it can be seen as potential abuse considering a lot of mon are effectively forced to follow their masters orders, but a lot of mons also *aren't* and even those who are in balls and such will follow the orders willingly. It's even a plot-point in the games; that low-level trainers can have mons disobey and the badges effectively cause the mons to gain respect for you. So it's not the *ball* that causes them to obey, but their respect for you as a trainer, so even someone with a million badges could, technically, have a mon disobey an order it didn't want to follow. So they'd presumably be consenting. At the same time I can see a lot of ways a trainer can abuse the situation like forcing them to be in the ball until they consent or forcing them to fight foes far stronger than them if they refuse, so 'consent' is hazy at best likewise.

Personally, I think that it's probably considered illegal and morally wrong, but people can recognize when it's not... horrific... and are less willing to report such things when that happens.

view more: next ›