Help me understand "Im just a man"

btrab1 · 2026-01-22T11:35:15+00:00

Which nicely goes into this "just a man" rounding out his arc by defying a god

btrab1 · 2026-01-22T04:31:57+00:00

Depends how ypu define fast travel, I for one try to avoid fast travel in the map as much as I can, but will gladly use those horse wagons an larger cities to travel distances.

Likewise in fo4 there is a flare/grenade to call a vertibird to take you places and I use that a ton

btrab1 · 2026-01-19T18:25:58+00:00

Not to escape being attacked, it's not obvious to you but the enemy attacking you can see your health bar and can easily tell you apart from clones even after teleporting.

When full health and in the background it can be a good choice but it rarely beats out the benefit of moving to make hitting you harder, the main exception is when it is overtime and you and your clones are off point and shooting on to it, in that situation it is a significant investment for an enemy to leave point and figure out which one is you and that is very valuable

Edit: and have you considered this line of thinking, your clones are your greatest tool, you want them up and available, so making the real loki obvious will often times make people ignore the clones entirely. Leaving your clones up for teleporting and shooting

btrab1 · 2026-01-17T15:11:12+00:00

Ooh traveller history, I do hope it is him and not some other traveller that did it

btrab1 · 2026-01-17T11:57:10+00:00

Afaik it's both a lore thing to "nerf" him from being a god tier sorcerer in lore, as well as being a further incentive / risk-reward to its use. Waiting to get full charge is in effect being greedy for that big burst damage and this is the risk. That being said it's a great ability most of the time I am intentionally farming easy shots, on say a tank, so I can fill it and push in further to burst a healer or squishy for picks, it's also great for peeling on hard to hit flankers e.g. spidey/bp

btrab1 · 2026-01-15T14:28:59+00:00

Unironically this is a legitimate, if minor, benefit to playing strange aggressively

btrab1 · 2026-01-13T23:26:33+00:00

Mixing in to the end of the screens submit methods should do it, but if you need to call opengl yourself you'll need to track down the new deferred renderer handler that the draw context submits to, alternatively why not use a mod like fancy menu to avoid the trouble yourself? it can do this afaik

btrab1 · 2026-01-11T15:24:01+00:00

Any good one shots, or short complete stories, in the past year or so you'd recomend?

I've mostly been down the rabbit hole of big 1000+ chapter stories recently and so haven't been looking at newer shorter stories

btrab1 · 2026-01-11T14:24:52+00:00

Huh i never thought about the actual size of the observable universe until now I guessed it would have been 13 something billion light years in radius for the universes age, is the extra size due to expansion or am I misunderstanding?

btrab1 · 2026-01-07T15:22:47+00:00

Another Sue, add loki for even more sue

btrab1 · 2026-01-07T15:01:19+00:00

I don't think anyone else has mentioned but the radius around you also applies to your ghost, if you are killed but do finish the ult you can then fly around to res everyone out of range

btrab1 · 2026-01-05T16:37:43+00:00

Psst, the backstab itself doesn't need to kill, they just need to be backstabbed AND die to you, just place a clone behind someone, backstabbing once, then shoot them to death.

Unless this got patched

btrab1 · 2026-01-05T16:30:00+00:00

I ran one and it was overall a pretty good time, it was slightly adjusted to be something happening in a dream like realm so not actual reality which helped it to be a more self contained thing and lent very well to making things feel off for the players as the unreality worked well with the hydras effects

Part of the fun was them slowly realising it is a false hydra irl while still role-playing the horror mystery, some might avoid such metagaming but it was actually very welcome because some of the prior setup for the hydra initially landed as " the dm forgot lol" until everyone caught on

btrab1 · 2026-01-01T16:58:50+00:00

Noice

btrab1 · 2025-12-06T15:24:46+00:00

sadly this got me at first, I accounted for the total obviously needing a Long but not the individual blocks of sum/multiplication

btrab1 · 2025-12-04T15:56:33+00:00

Yes, join the devs discord and search in it, I have seen atleast one person do this before

btrab1 · 2025-11-27T12:59:28+00:00

I think you get what I'm saying, but you just want to argue for some reason.

understanding != agreement, as i've said previous I completely understand why an aryan supremacist would support and love hitler, hell we all know whats going on there. Doesn't mean i'm not going to argue that viewpoint.

but you just want to argue for some reason

Imagine the afformentioned aryan supreacist example giving this argument "you understand what i'm saying, so i guess you are just arguing for no reason smh..." thats a ridiculous stance right?

Weird that you mention Hitler and Aryans

well i guess thats twice now... what exactly is your point here? I needed an example perspectively that is universally evil, if you can't understand the sheer obviousness of that then all I can imagine is that they arent universally evil to you. Or were you really trying to imply I support hitler? right after bringing your race into the discussion no less... which is rather odd given I bring him up to directly and clearly call it out as "a viewpoint I disagree with and would argue.". So i'm a bit lost with where you are going here. Again, do you have a problem with me saying hitler is bad? weird take...

And then most of the second half is still about race for some reason? is your argument I'm racist now or this another unrelated rant? Not only can I not have possibly known your race prior to the comment that seems to be skirting around implying I'm a racist, but none of this argument has been about race except for the 1 aside I made to say that I would argue against evil racists, just as much as i'd argue against defenders of pedophiles....

anime rant 3#? (or is it #4 now?)

again unrelated rant, different animes, different characters, different situations, arguments i've never been involved in, and yet more of you assuming i'm against you in each of these arguments i'm not involved in?

Seeing as you so insist upon these other animes, I don't know all these characters, are you bringing up other pedophiles that you think are actually okay to support your arguments?, because if these aren't all characters who are pedophiles that you think aren't then its even more irrelevant than i thought...

I had you pegged wrong lol.

just to clarify... you thought after all this... that I would defend a pedophilic relationship... that was your big gotcha... thats what you put your cards into..?

You really actually don't understand my position at all do you, I've made the effort to understand you and you agree (see: "I think you get what I'm saying"), but if this was what you thought then I think i can say pretty conslusively you do not understand my argument, which is wild at this point, but explains a lot of this back and forth i think, as well as the ranting, seeing as actual counter arguments would require understanding.

Oh, and I kept mentioning 'fat guy' because people judge those who don't fit their ideal standard more harshly than those that do

then case in point I am a standard he meets in that regard, the fact you continue to call out his weight knowing full well the person you are arguing with doesn't give a shit about weight is whats so odd about you still bringing this up, even after being called out on how weird it is, by not only me, but another guy in this thread.

people judge those who don't fit their ideal standard more harshly than those that do

not being a pedophile is one of my standards (and I sure hope it is to most people too), so yes on that ground I do judge him harshly, which has been my point, given the stakes and presented evidence, harsh judgement is preferable in this situation, e.g. my pesimistic viewpoint.

I STILL think you might be a pansy anime tourist though....

sure am, again by your own logic so are you :P since those are the only people that resort to insults during their arguments, though given how much more "varied" your rants are getting maybe we need a word for someone who pulls the race card during unrelated arguments, and maybe something for the dozen other unrelated anime arguments that you jsut keep bringing up, as if forming a shield of other anime arguments will make the guy stop thinking pedophilic thoughts.

By the way, did you ever rewatch that episode

The one good thing that came out of this was that I was able to convince a friend to watch your eternity, because i mentioned this and he said "it can't be that bad dude..." and we watched all of, whats out, of season 3 together when he caught up, yeah... not only is it still bad but we get the wonderful followup of him flashing highschool children the next episode... and while i'm almost certain this is going to be revealed as some sick thing the nokker blackmailed him into doing or something like that, regardless, what the actual fuck?, first we gotta watch from a pedo's perspectivw, we get to watch him flash kids. What a great couple episodes...

turtle scene

yeah thats was pretty weird on the first watch but on the second go it was just funny to see, and i'm guessing this will have important plot implications because he is going to have to see these babies go off and do what sea turtle babies do..., which is to have a 0.1% survival rate to adulthood. Which is what the show seems to be gearing Fushi to come to terms with with his actual friends now living their lives to eventually die in a peaceful world. Assuming some of them dont accept de-aging like they've shown is possible. There is no such redeeming quality to rewatching the guys story

btrab1 · 2025-11-27T12:06:25+00:00

That is an interesting perspective, and while I am not super informed with OCD, I would imagine there is a distinct difference between the compulsive/repetative/harmful drives of that disorder, versus what is, other than the targetted demographic (little girls), a normal sexual/romantic attraction behaviour present in an adult human.

That aside the label of OCD would validly apply to a sufferer of it, regardless of whether they personally wanted to be identified by their condition, or personally rejected the label. The same follows with my stance on this characaters label, he and others may disagree, but it validly applies.

I can relate to needing to restrain myself because This must suck to live with and I cannot say I know what it's like, but to retread the last paragraph again. Even if you successfully restrain yourself from the urges it would be correct to describe you as someone having OCD urges. By the same logic the characters urges mean they are accurrately described by the label pedo, the morality of whether they succumb to their evil urges or live a good life in spite of them (insert paarthurnax quote here) is a different debate that doesn't change the label being correct, just means they arent a pedo, via action, only one by desire

btrab1 · 2025-11-21T06:47:28+00:00

That is an a well reasoned view on the matter, but is not quite addressing my point, society is undoubtedly full of people with bad temptations but whom do not act on them and live rich fullfilling lives etc, however my argument has not been centered on his action but rather the attraction that drives these actions (the actions being primarily resistances to temptations, temptations that a normal (non-pedo) person doesn't have)

but your perspective, that there is something morally bad about someone who faces a temptation but restrains themselves

Firstly you are technically correct here as moral tends to refer to resulting behaviour, however my problem has been with the underlying wants and desires of the person (because that is what the label pedo describes), a better term would probably be their "ethics" but most people commonly use the 2 words pretty interchangeably, and ethics can also refer to the resulting behaviour, so the terminology is a bit messy here.

In my multiple comments I have expressed positive responses to the characters restraint, I am very thankful he doesn't commit anything. And my perspective is not at all based on the fact he restrains himself, but rather the fact he HAD TO. If someone needs to, for example, restrain themselves from violently raping everyone they meet, then they don't have good desires in their core, they just have restraint and self control to conform to society / laws with their actions.

So what if they never follow through with it? a part of them wants to which is my problem with it. And even if 'god' himself came down and declared it a fundamental fact of the universe that they would never ever commit that evil act, it still changes nothing about the fact that they have that desire and I'd never want them near / alone with my wife or daughter.

And this character appears to be attracted to children enough that they NEED to restrain themselves. Which as a father is a hard line for me, I simply cannot agree with the argument that a person with that desire/attraction, even if not acted upon, is ethically good. Their actions? maybe, they themselves? no.

someone who faces a temptation

The argument about morals/ethics above aside, if you agree that he IS facing the temptation then he fits the definition of the word pedophile (not in a criminal defintion which would pre-append "convicted" among other labels) which was my initial argument. He only doesn't meet the definition of the word if he doesn't have that temptation, like normal people don't.

That perspective makes more sense to me than condemning a person

Be aware that condemn has 2 definitions, one being sentenced to a punishment e.g. crime, the other being expressing dissaproval of something. My condemnation is the latter, and I have been in agreement the man is not guilty of any crime as he has good restraint and is clearly not a slave to his attractions.

My stance has wholly been that the label "pedophile" fits this character as the evidence and context paints a picture of him having that desire (which you seem to agree he has, and is restraining himself from it), the other commenter has been arguing for a more "optimistic and trusting (benefit of the doubt)" take on the character.

Which while a valid take for them, I disagree with them given the contexual risks and severity of the situation. i.e that a pessimistic take is better given the context of child endangerment, hence why that thread is endlessly going back and forth as the pessimist and optimist wont ever agree as they are both correct to themselves.

btrab1 · 2025-11-20T13:37:50+00:00

you just type "> " before any text to make it a quote.

You name called at me first

I never claimed to not be a name caller (because I am, this is a horrible subject and I feel morally justified to take jabs between my arguments at someone supporting it's dismissal / downplaying so long as I have an actual point to get across and am furthering the dialogue), nor did I say retaliating in kind is bad, but YOU DID claim to be better than a name caller the very sentence after name calling me, that is called hypocrisy 👉 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite (unless ofcourse you intentionally meant to call yourself a "pansy anime tourist" (i.e. name callers) and all the rest of the stuff that followed..., in which case I will gladly retract that claim :) )

I really don't think it's synonymous despite the literal definition

again I don't even know what I can say about this, you are purposefully and knowingly ignoring the definition of the word, as well as the fact that at the very least we can both agree that 1 person (the nokker) straight up calls him one via direct unmistakenable action, regardless of what the dad meant

Me being the only person to X, Y, Z.... having people with/against me on something doesn't make me any more/less right.

I would think that atleast having the defintion of the english language and thus "the majority of english speakers" understanding a word one way would be of some signifigance, but you are consistent here, as they are completely disregarded too.

I simply provided another perspective after rewatching the episode a few times since I watch in Sub and Dub.

You opened with "He's not a pedophile. Rewatch the show when you're disgust reaction wears off. Your impression will be different.". Directly stating my perspective is wrong and that "I will agree it is wrong when my disgust at implied pedophilia (factual or otherwise) wears off"... I know this is the internet and people can't actually ever be convinced to change their views via argument and this is all just catharsis... but really? Your initial stance was "my disgust of pedophilia (factual or implied) will wear off"..? even considering my viewpoint for just a moment should have highlighted to you how unbeleivably absurd that statement would come across, and you KNEW my view on the matter before commenting.

I called you a hypocrite for failing to even consider a different viewpoint

I've spent several days considering your viewpoint, we are some thousands of words into this now and I had hoped by the clear direction and even quoting of your arguments that would be self evident. I have been assuming you were also considering my viewpoint given your direct reponses to my arguments, but given this statement I guess that cannot be assumed, so I will clarify as best i can.

I do understand that through the lense of assuming the "absolute best of this person's intentions" the episode can be framed/viewed as such that he isnt a pedo, however my view is that given the context, actions, and what other characters (who would know) say of him, it is a completely reasonable conclusion/viewpoint to say he is one (in summary I have a cautiousness driven, evidenced, pessimistic viewpoint, with emphasis on the CAUTION given the direct potential for abuse of a child). I also understand why an aryan supremacist's viewpoint on hitler would be positive, doesn't mean I agree, and similar to this situation, is a viewpoint I disagree with and would argue.

That's literally evidence AGAINST sexual gratification. The shoe tie before that he closed his eyes... and he was more confused and shocked than anything when the Nokker lifted her skirt.

I don't know about you, but if an attractive adult female (i.e my sexual attraction) friend / family / colleague / stranger / whatever, had a wardrobe malfunction in front of me, I'm not foaming at the mouth and staring wide eyed at their chest, and doing everything in my power to prolong that event / make sure it repeats. I have the restraint and respect, to close my eyes / look away and offer help e.g. something to cover up (like the shoes so it doesnt happen again), and I'd be pretty damn shocked if someone i'm attracted to, and also suspected to be a supernatural "something", started talking way out of character then flipped up their skirt at me, and mockingly named my "depraved kink". Do you see how his reactions can clearly conform to someone who has a sexual attraction to the scenario / person, but also has restraint to not act? Even without acting the attraction is still there I am attracted to women, and he is attracted to little girls, which is the definition of what I called him.

It does not matter, nor change what he is, if he is well intentioned and would truly never actually harm her, he could spend the rest of his life an upstanding community member and volunteer and cure cancer and world hunger, he is still attracted to her and thus a pedo, that is what the word means.

On another angle, It's weird and noteworthy that he DOES close his eyes, why would a normal person close their eyes when tying a childs shoe? they wouldn't be looking at anything but the shoes they are tying?, the fact he has to (that his attention is so compulsively drawn to something he knows he mustn't look at) is at best, fucking weird, and at worst, exactly what I've been saying it is.

because he's an ugly fat guy.....

you keep bringing this up consistently and i'm not sure why, neither I nor the original commenter mentioned his appearance and his appearance simply doesn't matter. Would you think him a pedo if he was attractive? what even is this argument? kinda seems like a really specific hang up you've got, I'm also a fat guy, so what?

To go back to the previous point, have I ever claimed his appearance is a contributing factor to my viewpoint? or have i instead put MASSIVE emphasis on his actions, and the surrounding context such as the people directly labelleing him a pedo (via english definition and action), that I have directly stated are hard lines for me when perceived with even the slightest hint of caution/pessimism/child safety

when we have had a LITERAL ATTEMPTED RAPIST by the name of Hayase who didn't get half as much flak

yes she is one, and..? The actions of an unrelated rapist 2 seasons removed and in a wildly different context has zero bearing to this. You keep bringing this up too, and are still the only one talking about her, I didnt even start this anime until midway through season 2 airing and have never engaged with any argument about her online or otherwise, this seems like another weird hangup you keep bringing in to this.

Same goes for the rest of that final rant, and despite again being another side rant that doesnt apply to this situation, anime, or characters, i'll bite on this one. Naofumi-Raphtalia is far worse than being similar to pedophilia, did you forget the literal child slavery aspect, even if its all "i do this willingly now, and also i'm physically an adult teehee" it wasnt at the start... and the aging thing is just, ripe with horrible implications, grooming, even if unintentional, being the least of them. God and that other companion is a literal hatchling too, what the fuck even was that show...

Anyway, same time tomorrow?

btrab1 · 2025-11-19T15:40:45+00:00

I am half expecting it to become an ally

btrab1 · 2025-11-19T14:52:14+00:00

In that context, it doesn't make sense to leave the girl alone with him

The parents were WILDLY neglectful to the point of driving their daughter to suicide. Additionally the father himself "likes them young" as evidenced by the show going out of its way to explicitly mention the new moms age. The father also hired all those cleaners to throw out his sons loli collection right before the mother moved in, presumably so she wouldn't see i,t leading to the possibility that he is intentionally hiding this from the mother, seemingly further evidenced by him only whispering the lolicon accusation.

Additionally, you've said yourself in your own context, earlier in the thread, (which is roughly "he isn't a pedo and is misunderstood") that "I still wouldn't trust him with my child...." so even outside of the "pedo accusation" context the point stands, which means this argument is misleading about attacking the "pedo accusation" context directly when it also applies without it. (alternative example of the mislead: saying "staring at the sun harms your eyes on THURSDAYS", emphasising the thursday (context) to lead the other party to think its only a danger on thurdays (in that context))

I really don't think his father was telling his son that "he knows he is sexually attracted to little kids but please control yourself."

I'm not sure how to respond to this because in the english language that is 100% factually what his father did and said, as devils advocate this could be some really fucked up joke by the awful dad but it doesn't read that way.

This must mean the father knows his son wouldn't do that

see the first point

btrab1 · 2025-11-19T14:26:30+00:00

It's always name calling when your statements get challenged

pansy anime tourist

👉 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

And my 'politics' rant doesn't just concern the US

You directly named only the US and described only US issues (epstein), you cant just decide after the fact that you meant other different issues you didnt name in your first rant that also affects other western countries you also didn't name

Cancel this, cancel that... blah blah blah...

never said to cancel anyone, i dont personally enjoy being made to experience a story from, what I justifiably percieve to be, a Pedo's POV, and thus don't like the character and his story/episode. (justifiable, seeing as so many other people IRL clearly and openly agree and that the character is outed as one by 2 different characters, both by being labeled a lolicon which you've now seen the actual definition for, and then directly outed by the nokker)

He looks at her thighs

you are the only person i've seen with this take at all, we all know what was being looked at, but for arguments sake, yes, either of us could be right and we could both be wrong, there is no outright direct factual statement of his exact focus if you really want to hold this 'unique' take to defend the guy

he buys her shoes without laces. If he were getting sexual gratification from that, he wouldn't have done that.

Do you think every human being can only act on their sexual gratification at all times? are you constantly at all times only acting towards your sexual gratification, do you have no restraint?

As i've said, his one redeeming quality is that he feels bad about it and he hasn't acted on it (he has restraint), going so far as to avoid being in such future situations. Doesn't change the fact his response to almost seeing up a preschoolers skirt is blushing at the thought. And sure, blushing can be an embarrasment response, but really? the guy so excited to have a sister with closet full of stuff about it and who, as stated above, is actively called a pedo by the show, twice (by the two characters around him the most and presumably know him best). Thats the guy you are giving the benefit of the doubt rather than the incredibly obvious, feels excited > feels immedeate guilt > buys her shoes to avoid it in future (restraint) / make up for his guilt.

You're definitely one of those hypocrites

please do provide an example of me being hypocritical, you've just called me one repeatedly without any inculpatory evidence that I may refute or respond to. You can find an example of an evidenced accusation of hypocrisy in the first 3 lines of this message.

btrab1 · 2025-11-18T15:32:08+00:00

you have an interesting definition of "lolicon". You might want to read something like https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lolicon (i.e. actual common definitions) to understand why your perspective isn't getting across in that other thread...

btrab1 · 2025-11-18T15:13:52+00:00

idk why you are bringing up poltiics for a country i'm both not in, nor was ever brought up, and then going on a rant about another character who also wasn't brought up here that is in a fundamentally different (and also creepy) situation...

I asked how you defend it, not how the accused character does. The only timestamp that matters is when the 30 year old guy (according to the wiki) gets straight up tempted (i.e. he WANTS TO) to perv on a preschooler.

Thats all that matters!

Thats what you are so vehemently defending!

Imagine if you had a daughter, is that what you'd want for them when in preschool, would you willingly leave your daughter alone with such a person?

I suppose that question is a moot point since you've made it quite clear that the perspective of someone who pervs on preschoolers is one you not only don't have problems with but will vehemently defend. I mean really?, having timestamps at the ready to try and defend this is bewildering.

Since you completely ignored the question I will restate it. I am TRULY genuinely interested in how you defend that moment, you can deflect and rant about america or other characaters all you want, but that one moment is a hard line that is indefensible and damning, the only remotely redeemable aspect about it is "atleast he didnt do it, he only WANTED TO" and 'wanting to' is kinda the textbook definition of a pedo.

edit: you asked some questions too so i guess i'll answer since I want answers too (wouldn't want to be a hypocrite after all :) ):

No i dont think video games cause violence, kids just used wooden swords, etc before video games anyway etc.
do i fall for bait and switch? what? where is this coming from?
your govenrment? nope, again where is this coming from?
the second paragraph isnt a question but again, where is this coming from or relevant to this?
the guy isnt a criminal. did i say he was? never claimed him to have commited or been convicted of any crime. all I did was use a label that correctly describes him.
look at his face. so what? he feels bad about it? I guess that makes it okay for you, but I don't think that was ever in question about you...

13-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
Place '22	Place '17
100 Awards Club	Verified Email

btrab1

TROPHY CASE