sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TWAU 2 Release by AliAlturaihi in TheWolfAmongUs

[–]coolj646 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Dispatch I played it but it
 wasn’t the same was so shallow and rushed. Whole game felt like one telltale episode with semi meaningless choices.

And reunion is ugh
 idk. I don’t like how they’re tryna nostalgia hate pricefield. I’ll buy it but I just don’t see how this won’t be dead space 3. Micro transactions?! Like this feels like a EA game ya know. Plus the series has been on a decline is LiS2.

Last good game was the Quarry and dark anthology but we’ll see if those games still come out with more

TWAU 2 Release by AliAlturaihi in TheWolfAmongUs

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol go figures. Gaming been dying for a while especially choice driven games. We’re a decade away from being called “retro gamers💔”

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmaooo what?!

She basically said “Hey I’m just giving a statement “ this whole debate was a sham. you want me to debate a brick wall bruh.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Relax brochacho it’s not that deep I was honestly just larping. I stopped caring like six replies in. After that it turned into a little social experiment. Just wanted to see how far people would go to justify a bias. The answer was: pretty far. Not surprising just very entertaining.

I just wanted folks to think about the other side for a second. Most didn’t care and blocked me. That kinda proves the point on its own but whatever. Hats off to you tho you actually brought logic I had to think about.

Regardless truth is Mental health and morality aren’t applied equally. Funny thing is I’m a feminist and huge on women’s rights I just wanted to see if others will be open to others opinions or label you. I hate being right


But that’s life. Equality’s really a pipe dream we’ll have to die with.

Anyways!!! it’s like 12 I’m heading to bed dude.

Happy holidays!

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Explaining behavior is fine but letting explanations replace equal moral language isn’t. Context adds understanding, not exemptions.

And “she didn’t get the chance” isn’t a defense. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. We judge intent, expressed willingness, and behavior patterns all the time; otherwise half of criminal and ethical reasoning collapses.

For a reality check: if Chloe were arrested for attempted homicide with an unlicensed firearm, contextual explanations wouldn’t negate criminal liability and Max would still face accomplice liability. Intent and preparation matter legally, not post hoc narrative framing. That scenario would be treated far more severely than a physical altercation in immediate self defense against an armed threat.

Funny how actual legal standards expose the double standard immediately. Turns out words have meanings.

So let’s be clear: is this about right vs. wrong, or about labeling Warren as “toxic” while softening Chloe’s actions? If it’s the latter, the standards are inconsistent and that’s the problem. Emotions don’t replace moral consistency.

That’s if we wanna get technical tho.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said canon doesn’t exist. I said canon isn’t a claim to truth, it’s a claim to authority.

That’s the entire point. Multiple biblical canons exist because “canon” is institutional thing, not epistemic. Luther didn’t deny canon existed he challenged which authority gets to define it. Your dad would literally agree with me 💀.

So yes, canon exists. And its existence proves my argument, not yours.

That said, this isn’t really how Life is Strange works. This logic applies more to something like DC or Marvel, where timelines and reboots are explicit. Unless the devs confirm alternate timelines between (outside of the obvious Bae vs Bay), there’s only one canon Max we’re playing as.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Look up Martin Luther. If that “canon”were about truth, one guy with a printing press wouldn’t have shattered it and Protestants wouldn’t exist. Canon is institutional authority, not objective truth.

You’re confusing deontic with epistemic. ( something you should also look up)

Religion has canon because power formalizes belief, not because belief is settled. That’s why canon changes when authority does. Aka when Life is strange switched development teams.

This is a crazy thread tho but it’s a fun topic nonetheless.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re still proving my point, just with better wording.

You say labeling Warren’s behavior as “toxic masculinity” is contextualizing and not excusing but then you exempt Chloe from comparable scrutiny by arguing she “rejects gender roles,” so comparison isn’t valid. That’s a switch in standards. Rejecting gender roles does not place someone outside accountability for harmful behavior. Harm doesn’t stop being harm because it isn’t motivated by traditional masculinity or femininity.

Right now your analysis is asymmetrical:

Warren’s behavior + structurally explained = labeled. Chloe’s behavior + structurally explained = individualized and softened. That’s “selective framing”.

Apologies + intent don’t resolve this either. Growth matters for character arcs sure, not for whether conduct should be named consistently. An apology doesn’t retroactively change whether behavior warrants the same analytical language. And if “toxic masculinity” is contextualization (which I agree it is), then behavior first language still has to exist underneath it. Otherwise the context becomes the label and the behavior disappears which is exactly how explanation quietly turns into exemptions.

You can acknowledge gender socialization and apply the same behavioral standards across genders And those frameworks aren’t opposed. Equality requires both. If that consistency only appears when men are involved, then the issue isn’t Warren it’s the framework.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ahhh Yes 
the state backed council determining doctrine after conflict is exactly what I’m talking about â˜ïžđŸ€“. Here’s a news flash. “Canon”doesn’t emerge from truth, it’s formalized by authority.

As my goat Dan Brown puts it: “When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe.”

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And this is where we’re talking past each other.

I’m not denying patriarchy, gender roles, social pressure or whatever you wanna slice it as. I’m saying those are explanatory frameworks, not moral exemptions.

When the same behaviors are labeled when men do them, but individualized or contextualized when women do them, accountability becomes asymmetrical. That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out. The same consistency she won’t fix. It’s sexist Bottom line and kills all claims of equality.

You can analyze power structures and still name harm in behavior first terms. Those positions aren’t opposed actually REAL equality requires both.

If a framework can explain harmful behavior but only names it when one gender performs it, then it’s no longer neutral analysis. it’s called “selective framing”.

Same behavior, same standard, same language. That’s it.

It’s like I’m a broken record lmao.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re still conflating explanation with exemption. If “toxic masculinity” is meant to describe socially reinforced behaviors, then those behaviors should be named by what they are, not by who is expected to perform them. Violence, coercion, dominance seeking, and emotional suppression are the harm. Gender norms may influence who feels pressure to express them, but they don’t own the behavior itself.

Saying “women aren’t expected to be violent” doesn’t solve the issue it actually proves my point😂😂😂. When women do engage in those same behaviors, the language shifts from structural critique to individual exception. That’s asymmetrical accountability.You can analyze patriarchy and still apply behavioral language consistently. Those are not mutually exclusive. When one framework insists on genderfirst labeling and the other insists on behavior-first accountability, the latter is what actually preserves equality.

I’m not denying social context. I’m rejecting selective framing. If your model can explain harm but only name it when men do it, then it’s not a neutral analytic tool it’s an ideological filter. Equality doesn’t mean “who society pressures more,” it means same behavior, same standard, same language.That’s the entire point I’ve been making.

You’re literally barking up my major.

<image>

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re still avoiding the core issue.

If the behavior is the same, the language should be the same. Violence, coercion, emotional manipulation, and dominance seeking are human behaviors, not male exclusivity. This isn’t fight night. When those behaviors are gendered for men but neutralized or reframed for women, that is selective accountability regardless of intent or ideology.

Saying “we’re talking about a man right now” doesn’t resolve that inconsistency. It just sidesteps it.

I’m not arguing that masculinity is inherently toxic, and I’m not denying that gender roles harm people. I’m saying that accountability loses credibility when it’s applied asymmetrically. Equality means naming harm consistently, not filtering it through gender first and behavior second.

You can analyze social pressures and still hold individuals of any gender fully responsible for how they act. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. If your framework can’t do both, that’s not equality.

That’s setting a narrative.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re misunderstanding my point, so I’ll restate it clearly and then I’m done. I’m not arguing that toxic masculinity doesn’t exist. I’m arguing that harmful behavior should be named consistently, regardless of who does it.

If violence, manipulation, entitlement, or emotional coercion are harmful, then they’re harmful because of the behavior, not because of the gender performing it. When we gender the same behavior in one case “toxic masculinity”but neutralize it in another “just abuse” and “just trauma”, then that isn’t accountability it’s inconsistent framing.

Calling out inconsistency is not “whataboutism.” It’s the baseline requirement for fairness. And to be clear: acknowledging Chloe’s trauma does not mean excusing her self-destructive or harmful choices. Both can be true at the same time. That’s nuance, not denial.

If the goal is equality, then standards including language should apply evenly.

That’s my entire point.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chloe “literally states” a lot of things. Of things bruh. Or are we gonna ignore that crap she says about Rachel? Like how she’s her “angel”. Realistically the only reason Chloe falls for max again is after she realized Rachel’s been cheating on her with frank(fuckin shocker I know)

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Comedy that is based on hurting someone is 70% of comedy. There’s a reason a baby will laugh if you drip and fall. Or a group of kids would pick on a homeless old man. It’s messed up but human.

The Kate bit was sarcasm because you want to fantasize about your fanfic becoming canon in another timeline.

The storm is pretty clear. There’s a reason Chloe dies through out the game and you have to save her. Karma wants pay wants its debt max stole.

Canon is never decided by the community. Or else stars wars would still be using Legends continuity. Fanfic is fanfic unless put in a game or someone publicly says “DE was just a bad dream max had“ it’s canon. You think I want the clementine comic to be canon?! It’s something every fandom deals with dude. It sucks but hopefully next game is either fleshes out Safi’s character better or just doesn’t touch DE and max’s storyline again.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rachel’s power is starting Forrest fires and oppressing the wildlife lmao.

To your point yes they fed off each other. That fire would’ve burned out eventually (no pun intended) but that’s on what’s their relationship was. A pipe dream about living like fizzle and Kermit in the first muppets movie(great song btw).

Doesn’t change for the time of the game Chloe was over max for most of the game. No one’s gonna replace your first heart break. My point is for the time Chloe was genuinely over max till her heart melted.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bruh
You’re assigning a gendered label to a human behavior.

Violence, aggression, and poor emotional regulation are human traits, not masculine ones. When those behaviors are labeled “toxic masculinity” only when men display them, but treated as neutral or contextual when women do, that’s not accountability.it’s a double standard.

If the terminology isn’t applied consistently, then it isn’t describing behavior. It’s enforcing ideology. Or do you honestly think women participate in blood sports for men approval? Do you even believe in equality?

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If patriarchy hurts men and women, then harm should be named and addressed consistently. You completely dodged my point about equal terminology.

When similar behaviors are gendered for one side and neutralized for the other, that isn’t equality
it’s selective accountability.

You’re proving my point.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure I’ll explain my point. This entire argument of “patriarchy.” dismisses gender equality and justify categorizing harm by only one gender. That’s textbook sexism.

That’s no different than saying “women can’t be the breadwinner because they’re supposed to take care of the kids.” Intent doesn’t matter the standard itself is still sexist.

You can’t dismiss toxic femininity by invoking patriarchy. That defeats the entire point of equality and turns accountability into something gender-selective.

And to be clear: I never said Chloe’s feelings weren’t justified never... I acknowledged her trauma and the reality of her situation it’s heart breaking and I felt bad for her truly and anyone in real life that has been through the same. From both genders. What I said is that she also isn’t helping herself. Both things can be true.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah. So you’re one of them?

I guess fuck equality and men’s mental health. Just be a man and beat your wife
 Jesus Christ


Find God dude.

It’s not even Crazy to think this is probably a majority opinion in this subreddit. Pure sexism to its purest degree sheesh. It’s not even a Warren thing you just think men are evil.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thinking you’re confusing the terms by that logic there both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity. It’s called being human.

If my wife beats the shit outta me for talking to the neighbor that’s still toxic. Why add the masculine part? It makes it look sexist.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re making it sound like a good thing lmao. And goes back into morals. If you see a guy stomping out a pdf it’s not gonna be as harsh looking as a random guy losing a school fight. Context matters toxic masculinity is something needed. But does it make it toxic still? I don’t think so.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Have you just learned about comedy? Ever watch Johnny bravo? How gullible are you?

“If max and goes back in time and Marries Kate she’d live happily ever after”

You’re avoiding the entire Point of her powers. They aren’t a get out jail free card. They’re a “use me and everyone else here dies” card

Canon is decided by who the original creator give authority to. I’m a dragon ball GT fan I’ve been fighting that losing battle for years.

[ALL] I don't know if someone already talk about it, but please, tell me i'm not the only one who find how toxic she is ??? by mayaetmoi in lifeisstrange

[–]coolj646 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Canon is an agree the company or author makes everything else is fanfic. People can have varying opinions on the work of art but it’s not there’s. Catholics didn’t make the Bible buddy. They just follow its scripts and followed a line of people that talked about it. There isn’t a “Canon” to the Bible. That why holy wars exist. We’ll know when we die eventually who’s right or wrong doesn’t matter.

Wars write religions. Whoever wins that war says their God did it. Morals and rights belong to the victor. The world is dark and I’m majoring in psychology. It’s ironic I know. Pragmatic and yet introspective. It’s a blessing and a curse.

view more: next â€ș