The guilt IS a negative repurcussion.

And I’m not saying that what she did isn’t wrong, just because she feels bad about it. Guilt isn’t a moral ‘get out of jail free’ card- far from it, and those who use that thought as an excuse to do further horrible things are generally just as bad as those who do horrible things without feeling any guilt at all. A good fictional example would be Frollo from Hunchback of Notre Dame.

And do people always avoid things that have hurt them in the past? No, because people aren’t logical like that. But they’re darn well going to be hesitant to run a red light if last time they got into a car crash, or might be quicker to get out of a corrosive relationship if they’ve experienced one before. But people do stupid, self hurtful things- and honestly, sometimes the ‘pain’ is what they want in the first place.

Now, hopefully Allison isn’t the sort of person to actively want to create more pain for herself (or guilt)- her upbringing, and what’s been shown of her so far suggest that she isn’t. Does that mean that her Hero complex and tyrannical way of viewing morality will let her ignore situations like the one with Max in the future? Probably not. Does it mean she most likely won’t say “Screw it, I’ve done this much already” and become a Justice Lord? Probably.

Actually, speaking of Justice Lords- consider Man of Steel and BvS- both of those movies have Superman do something he was shown to absolutely hate doing- kill. BvS even showed it being rather easier for him. However, both times, it was the LAST RESORT, and he very specifically didn’t go taking over the world in order to force his own moral compass on everyone else. This is what upbringing and guilt does- though guilt can also work the other way, promoting tyranny, as can be seen in the Injustice arc of the comics.

This is why I don’t think Al is going to go Dr. Doom on everyone, and why it’s important that she is feeling so much guilt- her situation isn’t going to point her at ‘do it more’ as a way to relieve the guilt via ‘proof that it was the right thing to do’- even though in the small scale, that’s happened. She’s not going to have the people around her, her support network, who she loves and trusts and cares about, tell her ‘that was the right thing to do, and you should do it more’. Maybe if she didn’t have that support network, maybe if she wasn’t actively trying to repair/rebuild old friendships, and was instead making herself a Fortress of Solitude, I’d be more worried. But she isn’t, and I’m not.

This is just an example of falling before you can get back up. She’s made a mistake, she’s dealing with the consequences. Hers just, since she’s invulnerable and publicly known, happen to be emotional and mental, rather than physical.

I think there may be something to your thought about the “jobs [you’ve] had…” thing- most of the arguments you’re giving sound like situations where there’s something external driving the person to do the ‘bad action’ in the first place (except the rape- rape’s pretty much never justifiable, to me at least).

Theft? Material needs. Murder? You say so yourself- in the midst of a Crime of Passion, driven by emotions from a different source. Spouse beating? Probably driven by an addiction of some sort, or, again, emotional instability about something other than the spouse beating (if you’re feeling guilty about it- all these situations could come about due to amorality or twisted up pleasure responses, but you’d probably feel less than guilty in that case, so they’re not relevant to this discussion).

You’re talking about people who’s lives have required them to do these things, and who’s lives will probably require them to do these things again- in which case, yes, the guilt will go away over time.

Even in Injustice (and I was thinking more about BvS and Man of Steel’s portrayals of Supes, as those, I think, more closely match what Al is going through now), Superman has external forces urging him to do the things he does- both Wonder Woman and his other supporters (taken, in Als case, by the forms of Feral and those telling her “Whatever you did is great!”) urging him that tyranny is a good decision, and in the form of grief and anger from the inciting incident. He’s pushed to keep traveling down the slippery slope a lot more than Allison is. And it is a classic slippery slope, because he doesn’t do the more reprehensible things until much, much further down the line- he started very much as a grief-stricken idealist.

But Allison was motivated to do [i]her[/i] ‘terrible thing’ BECAUSE OF guilt, and now she’s feeling the guilt of her action- so in this case, the guilt she’s currently feeling is directly in opposition to doing the same thing again.

Might she oppress again? Yes, if her ‘guilt over the world’ or hero complex becomes too much again. But now it has something to directly compete against, and it takes a special kind of person to feel more guilty about abstaining from an action that doing an action.

You know, I think you’ve won this debate. I’m still optimistic that Al won’t travel down that slope (and I figure that the narrative causality of this particular webcomic won’t let her go that way) but I’m not seeing it as out-of-character as before.

What you were saying about poor impulse control especially rings true, and is something I hadn’t considered (probably because of my own experiences). Maybe it’s just a weakness of the medium, but I do think you’re right about her not considering her other options more- perhaps Feral’s situation was weighing heavier on her than we saw, or there was something she knew (keeping track of organ waiting lists or something) that we didn’t, but those sorts of things weren’t shown, and so you’re right that it looks like she jumped to ‘violence is the answer’- possibly explained (but not excused!) by her past as a Superhero..

Per Wikipedia “A Mary Sue is an idealized and seemingly perfect fictional character, a young or low-rank person who saves the day through unrealistic abilities. Often this character is recognized as an author insert or wish-fulfillment.[1] Sometimes the name is reserved only for women, and male Sues are called “Gary Stus” or “Marty Stus”; but more often the name is used for both sexes of offenders.[2][3]”

This is basically what i understand as a Mary Sue ever since i first ran into the idea almost 20 years ago (as a critique of fan fiction writers mostly), and Honor Harrington fits the definition to a T.

The idea that only women authors write Mary Sues is very recent. *All* amateur writers write Mary Sues. I don’t like how that connotation is growing.

I haven’t read the Honor Harrington series – yet. I intend to, someday. What I’ve heard about her suggests that she IS the sort of character that I would admire, and who is not a Mary Sue. Or the male counterpart, which is EXACTLY THE SAME THING: A Marty Stu. Let’s just call them MSes for a nice gender-neutral term.

Some examples of an MS: Marvel’s Wolverine, ever since the 90s. What was once a complex and interesting character has become “Stabbity McGee,” presented as being always in the right no matter what, is considered a loner despite being on multiple teams, and is constantly surrounded by beautiful women who want to play Beauty to his Beast. In the animated “Hulk versus” double feature we see him beat the same emerald goliath that had just beaten Thor. When “keen nose, extra fast healing, and metal claws” beats “thunder god,” there’s a problem there.

Frank Miller’s All Star Batman. Violent, deranged, kidnapped newly orphaned kids and imprisoning them in the Batcave to eat rats – as one critic summed it up, “This is not Batman. This is Crazy Steve. This is clearly a mentally ill homeless man who stumbled into the Batcave and stole the suit.” Bonus points on the MS meter for stealing Green Lantern’s ring and making him whine and pout and completely forget that he can literally will the ring back to his finger with a thought.

Anita Blake. Oi vey… a friend insisted I read the books to see her awesomeness… I finally had enough after the one where she goes to Las Vegas (MY hometown!). All the powers of a vampire AND every lycanthrope, none of their weaknesses (except for needing to have sex twice a day). Possibly the most self absorbed and selfish protagonist I have EVER seen, with the exception of the Boss from the Saints Row games. By the time I gave up on the series (which is why my friend is now annoyed when I bring it up, because I have LOTS of trivia to offer up as reasons why she’s so horrible), Anita had literally NO female friends who were not subordinate to her. She had a wererat bodyguard (who I found more interesting than Anita), she had a few other female underlings… that was it. Otherwise there were female characters who existed to be victims, and female characters who were strong and not Anita’s subordinate – and invariably evil and likely to be destroyed.

Rayne from the webcomic “Least I Could Do.” You… you don’t even want to know.

Mora from the webcomic “Las Lindas.” Her first defining act is to trick a guy into coming to her home and then using him as slave labor. From then on it will be repeatedly emphasized how he’s a horrible and terrible person, even though he ends up being the only person on the farm to have never stolen from, physically assaulted, or cheated another resident. Mora’s nemesis Alejandra Coldthorn objects to the Empress of the World literally descending to earth to award Mora first place in a contest Alejandra had won, only to be stripped naked and made a laughingstock. Later the authors decided to have Alejandra and Mora bury the hatchet and Mora… forgive… Alejandra.

As I understand it, Honor Harrington is basically a genderswapped scifi homage to Admiral Horatio Nelson. She’s even an amputee; MSes generally do not suffer physically debilitating injuries that damage their appearance (beyond a mostly cosmetic scar or something). And she’s surrounded by intelligent and capable characters who are not outshined by her presence. Nobody is made to be an idiot or incompetent just to make her look good. That’s the big one, the primary aspect of an MS: they have to shine at the EXPENSE of other characters, rather than shine as part of an impressive ensemble cast.

My point was a bit different. I was not saying that Honor Harrington was a MS. I was saying that, if she had been written by a woman, she would have been called an MS, and the author would have been attacked and denigrated for writing such a transparent wish fulfillment character.

That’s why “Mary Sue” is an ugly idea – because it’s become gendered, and used to attack any woman who writes a remotely cool female character. Some women have stopped writing because of this. (Don’t blame them unless you’ve experienced a full-on Internet-bullying attack yourself.)

And Steven Seagal! Lets not forget every Steven Seagal role 🙂

I heard that Seagal cried and whined about how his character was killed in Executive Decision, because he honestly believes, and usually has in his employment contracts, that his characters are supposed to be godlike and perfect like he is.

I’m not kidding. I wish I was kidding and making this up.

I’m just going to reply on a few points…

All Star “I’m the Goddamn” Batman: Agreed, especially on Green Lantern. You forgot to mention that while he was de-ringed, Robin took offense to something he said and almost crushed his trachea with one punch, forcing Batman to do emergency first aid and rush GL to the hospital. Now THAT’S crazy!

Anita Blake: *sigh* I’m a fan, but she has gone off the rails (character-wise). “Affliction” was pretty good, but I stopped reading “Crimson Death” about 1/4 of the way through (not because of “MS”, but instead another pointless argument with a lover/minor character I don’t really care about).

Honor Harrington: Minus an arm *and* an eye! (Cybernetics are a thing, though; never fear.) Not an MS, I think. The series is still interesting, since it has switched focus from Honor to other characters. But I hope Honor re-emerges from author-imposed exile soon. 😎

I think we had a pretty involved discussion about just how my standards were possibly warped.

Yes, I’d have robbed the person with ladder and use the ladder to save the person in the burning building because this is ethical and just (at least for me). A life is more important than an egoistical jerk’s possessions and anyway I can return back their possessions once I’m done with saving. Sorry, but this my way to see things, I’m way too into saving people than anything else.

>This was exactly Alison’s choice.
Alright, allow me to indulge myself into some shitty metaphore crafting:

You’re walking down the street, and you can see a person in a burning buliding. They shout that they have went in here willingly, because they decided that the best use of their life would be to burn down to ashes to fertilize the fields and prevent starvation in their home town. They also add that, due to a wizard’s curse, they can’t actually die from burning, they’re just shedding lotsa ashes in a horribly painful way. But it’s okay, nothing to see here, please carry on.

For the sake of a shitty metaphore, let’s assume that it’s perfectly reasonable and not just ramblings of a madman, and that the ashes produced this way will actually prevent the famine that threatens the town.

And now you can see a stranger passing through the town, with a ladder and a truck of fertilizer. Is mugging him for the ladder and the fertilizer, and then rescuing the person against their wishes a good thing?

Now *this* was exactly Alison’s choice.

How about exchanging “a few more days of the person being tortured, but you’l get some sleep, think the situation through, talk to people smarter than you and convince the guy to borrow his lader and use his fertilizer, so everyone’s good” for “crime, violence, and unknown amount of trauma to a passing guy, because no time to explain you’re going with me headdesk incentive structure hurr durr”?

Dang, am I mad at Alison for being stupid >:[

Probably should put a /sarcasm in there. I know you’re being sarcastic but you would not believe how many people will not realize that.

Yes, you’re right, she needs help and the fact that she honestly regrets what she did makes her a good human being (a flawed human being but good anyway). But, if Max would have accepted to use his powers for good (I’d have accepted easy in his place, I always wanted superpowers/superskills to help/protect people) then she wouldn’t have to do what she did, but it was also his egoistical side who pushed her to do what she did. He has his own fault and I’d love to see a chapter with what he’s feeling after everything (if he really wants to change, to become a better man and help people or he’ll remain a jerk until he’ll die). That would be interesting.

My argument isn’t really about utilitarianism, so much as it is that maybe people shouldn’t be so hard on Allison for being written like a real human being instead of a comic book character (even though that’s what she is, of course.) I don’t think any of the people who have commented wouldn’t do exactly what she did if the circumstances were right.

I mean, I consider myself a peaceful person. I don’t look for fights, I don’t intentionally hurt people, I try to find compromise in disagreements. I can honestly say, I think it is morally wrong to physically assault someone. I truly believe that. And yet…

If I had to choose between punching a guy in the face, taking him hostage for two hours, and twisting his arm a bit, OR my little sister dies and/or is tortured for the rest of her life, I’d be like “Sorry dude, guess I’m gonna punch you in the face.” I’d feel genuinely bad about it, but I would still do it.

And hell, that’s just one person. If that makes me a monster, I think that means everyone is a monster, ‘cuz I can’t think of a single person of my acquaintance who wouldn’t do that or a whole lot more to save the life of someone they care about. I mean, be honest with yourself. Think of the face of a person whom you love enough that you’d stand in front of a gun for them. What wouldn’t you do? Where’s your line? Mine would probably be at killing, do be honest. Temporary pain and inconvenience aren’t even close.

Most of us are lucky enough that we’re never going to face a situation where we have to choose between what we know is morally wrong (ie assault) and someone else’s life or safety. Batman faces that choice and picks the idealistic route; hundreds of people die, Batman makes a sad face, on to the next comic. Allison faces that choice and picks what most of us would, realistically, do, then deals with realistic feelings of doubt, regret, confusion, and guilt. I don’t think that makes her a monster. I think it makes her a well-written person, instead of a one-dimensional ideal.

Killing someone is wrong… unless perhaps they are in pain and want to die (assisted suicide) or are braindead (euthanasia)? Holding someone against their will is wrong… unless perhaps they are suspected of a crime and are a strong flight risk, or mentally unwell and need to be hospitalized for evaluation? Assaulting someone is wrong… unless perhaps they are threatening someone else, or about to hurt themselves? Abusing power is wrong….

Context and intention cannot be separated from a discussion of morality. No action is 100% wrong 100% of the time to 100% of observers. We can certainly debate whether the wrongness of what Allison did outweighed the positive results, but if you take the position that some actions are wrong no matter what situation they take place in, you’re advocating a form of moral absolutism that is just as tyrannical as straight utilitarianism.

I agree with you on that score completely. It does feel a far cry from ‘we can’t ever allow even some rules to be broken even sometimes’ tho. ;3

There’s a number of ways to look at Batmans refusal to kill.
Here’s 3 big ones from top of my head.
1. He is unstable, and knows it, no killing is a limiter to keep him from going to far, as once he starts, he might be unable to stop.
2. He is not a judge nor jury, he will not take the place of the justice system, Gotham has death penalty, if the people want Joker dead, they can elect a judge who will sentence him after jury finds him guilty.

3. Joker would not stay dead, he’d just come back from the dead as a crazier superpowered undead/demonic joker.

Batman could kill Joker, and maybe he should, smae can be said for almost everyone else who is ever in a room with Joker.

That’s some top-notch writing and animation.

You mean, Alison?
And the lesson given to all humans under her varying whims?

I guess I walked right into that one.

I dunno, I still feel like that, if he does have to be given credit here, it’s less an intentional calling out and more an unintended side-effect of his own heavy-handed attempts to assert dominance via ridicule.

Since her motives (wanting to help feral and satisfy her heroic ego) were selfish and ‘countless lives’ were just a side benefit? Yes, it was self-serving.

First, I assume it because while I don’t believe in humans being innately good or evil, I do believe in us being innately selfish. Second, this has always been about Feral. When we first saw her, Al did not like Feral and she was viewed by Al as a near villain, someone in deserving of being punched. Then Feral comes up with a way to use her powers to help people (to assuage her own guilt, but that’s another discussion), which in turn caused Al to realise how ‘little’ she was doing with her own power. Al’s feelings of guilt only increase from there. Whenever Feral comes up, Al displays strong emotional reactions, be it guilt or anger and she uses the whole ‘saving countless lives’ thing in order to try and guilt Max in to using his powers. She could have gotten him to augment any super to save lives, but she specifically chose Feral, someone she personally knew who was in constant pain and torture. All Al really cares about is ‘doing the right thing’. Emphasis on the ‘do’; she’s very much an action girl. Consequences (good or bad) aren’t things she gives much consideration to.

I kind of meant their overall conversation before the game itself came into play involved a lot of goalpost moving to make sure when the game did into play, the only possible outcome was the one he had engineered to make him “right”.

Y’know, I honestly tried to go back and reread the classroom scene to cite more specific examples and… I just couldn’t do it.

I don’t know if I’m just burned out on this conversation or I’ve had too many bad personal experiences with teachers like Jerkface that too much prolonged contact just dredges up too much garbage for me to evaluate him fairly.

Which is basically my long-winded way of apologizing for not being able to keep up this line of conversation anymore.

I had interpreted her talking to Daniel as basically saying “I have killed people as a superhero and the only difference is that the government can’t lock me up.” So I thought of it as either she has intentionally hurt people like Daniel did, or else she hasn’t and didn’t / doesn’t see the difference.

What would be the strongest defense that would make you reconsider that opinion as valid?

Not really. Sexual assault is not a magical worse than anything crime that gets to be metaphor, simile, allegory or allusion proof just because you feel strongly about it. If it worked like that, we’d never be able to use cancer as a metaphor for something malignant that spreads and grows inside of something else when it works so well.

You are letting your personal feelings get in the way of artistic analysis. To remove something from artwork, to pretend it doesn’t exist, and deny it has impact on the piece and refuse to acknowledge any critique or analysis involving it because you, personally, find it distasteful is the antithesis of art bordering on censorship. Call me insensitive all you want, I don’t care. I’m not the one trying to shut down other people just because I don’t like their views and opinions that supposedly “nobody cares about”.

“Here’s the lesson: assault is not an analogy for sexual assault.”
And this is where you are. You are refusing to accept any viewpoint but the most basic and shallow one, that a visual thing is a visual thing and nothing else. You are plugging your ears and denying that an allusion can exist because you have decided that this one, specific thing is so important to you that it is special above all others. You go above and beyond that even, and jump to the absurd conclusion that anyone without your particular viewpoint;
“That’s the archaic, obsolete and sexist opinion to have”
Must be a bigot. That is not how discourse happens. You don’t get to shut down a discussion because you dislike the content of it. Especially not if you’re going to disregard what people are actually trying to say because you have decided you are the sole authority to judge and gate-keep the subject.

“I’m indulgent, this is one I keep for idiots”
And now you fall back to name calling when I refuse to fold and obey you. It’s amazing, really. If people don’t do what you want, don’t think how you want, you try classic bully tactics. The irony of this in light of the comic is fairly amusing.

“Yes, this is how discourse happens.”
Not really. In a discussion you don’t shout at someone to shut up and then try to insult them when they don’t. If you don’t like an opinion and have no intention to even listen to it in the first place, you are free to walk away and ignore it. Choosing to engage solely to disregard any actual discussion to sling mud isn’t a discussion. It’s a childish tantrum.

” where adults stop catering to your contemptible ignorance”
Also the irony of calling others ignorant given how many times in this conversation alone you’ve made very crass assumptions about another person based solely on the fact that their opinions don’t align with yours and treated it like solid fact.

“Bye!”
You were free to stop responding at any point. Instead you choose to get defensive, offensive and personally invested over someone’s differing analysis of a web comic. There is no need to attempt a dramatic end to the conversation, there was never a need to start it since from the outset you didn’t intend to contribute anything or even challenge my view in any meaningful way.

Except that’s not at all what I said, in fact that’s almost the literal opposite of what I said and it’s incredibly childish to straight up fictionalize a conversation like that to try and bend the truth to fit your incredibly narrow minded view that anyone who doesn’t personally agree with you must be a bigot.

I pulled no shit. I brought up the briefest mention of a metaphor and you went nuts over it based solely on your own conclusions which came from entirely internal assumptions drawn on imaginary sleights rather than fact.

Because it isn’t one. You chose to make a problem out of it for no particular reason. Then doubled down and tried to claim you weren’t trying to silence other people while still continuing to do it. The issue is not what I said, the issue seems to be that you just get really bent out of shape when someone doesn’t line up with your personal views. Which, apparently, includes metaphors which are a completely asinine thing to get upset over.

“I’m fond of being even slightly invested by stupid ideas that have no place being even considered as anything more than laughing stock.”
You declare something you know literally nothing about, as I did not explain my take on it in any detail, as having no place or merit right off the bat. You had zero intention to engage in any kind of discussion, you simply wanted to stamp out any ideas or voices you don’t approve of in a very hamfisted way.

People are not very complicated, when you engage someone and go straight to the offensive it generally doesn’t make someone want to listen to you. Especially when your next step is to insult and deride them for zero reason. Ultimately; who are you and why should I care? You seem to put a massive amount of weight on your own ego because you post in these comments a lot, and seem to think that gives you the right to control who gets to post here and which ideas are “allowed” which in turn means you think it’s okay to attack people just for having views you don’t like. That’s pretty messed up.

Had you actually made an effort to engage with me, I might have been open to your views. Instead, you didn’t even bother to read what was posted, or seek a deeper explanation. You assumed the worst, pretended your assumptions were solid fact and decided that your fictionalized version of a person who you’ve never met was in fact, the real one. But by all means, please keep trying to tell me how I’m “wrong” when you have failed on every possible level to articulate why.

” And I’m perfectly fine with raining down on your winning combo of dumb ideas”
Except you’ve done nothing of the sort. You just started crying that I compared one thing to another thing because. Question marks. You never explained anything, you never gave me any reasons, and when your emotional appeal failed you began to throw a tantrum and somehow assumed that meant you were a cool internet dude instead of an aggressor being pointlessly harassing when anyone else who didn’t like the post just ignored it.

” unearned ignorant pride”
Pot calling the kettle black. You are trying to control an entire comment section by stamping out any artistic analysis that doesn’t line up with your personal take on the subject.

“if you intend to introduce “unexpected” opinions here you *better* actually know what you’re talking about.”
It’s a shame you never actually heard my opinion before you started throwing a fit over it. Or maybe not, given your posts it seems you made a preemptive decision about the whole matter.

“Also it’s fun your line of thinking is wildly inconsistent, contradictory and goalpost moving and each time you address just one single thing of the dozens I address”
Irony. You have not once actually addressed what I said in my original post and have gone so far as to completely try and fictionalize what I’ve said to make me look like a bigot. Instead you focused on one metaphor and ran with it. All I’ve done is respond to your inane complaints to try and make you stop raging about it and realize that not everyone on the internet has to play by your arbitrary rules. You are not the site owner, you do not set the law on what can and can’t go on in these comment sections. Even back when they still moderated the comments, something like I posted would have gone through because it has in the past. I know because I’ve posted similar opinions before.

“leading me to accept internally that you do admit I’m right”
About what? You haven’t had a single worthwhile contribution at hand. You haven’t even actually disagreed with me. You just threw a tantrum over a word I used. There’s nothing to be right or wrong about.

“after I said the analogy was not just offensive but also needless and unnecessary and you just focused on “offensive” because that’s what you do”
Because if it was unnecessary I wouldn’t have included it. It’s not an especially large leap of logic to think that I know more about my views and opinions than you do. You might even know why I chose to go with the rape analogy if you’d actually probed a bit rather than leaping straight to the worst conclusions and going on a full offensive about it, but hey. Why bother, right?

I mean the fact that I’m still responding to you shows one thing, and now I will begin to stroke my own ego. Every post I’ve been waiting for you to actually try and prove me wrong, give me an objective reason why, without even hearing my reasoning, my opinion is wrong. But you haven’t. But, hey, at least I’ve been willing to hear you out. I didn’t just dismiss you as garbage and insult you. Because when I post in comment sections like this, I do it to hear what other people think. Even if it’s something I disagree with. There are some interesting people I really disagree with in other comment lines. But you’re probably the first person who just wants to shut down every view that isn’t theirs and decides before even posting what people are and aren’t worthwhile to have around. It is laughable that someone like you would try to call me out on ego and pride.

I remember what I said just fine and still stand by it. You have still failed to explain why it is beyond the reach of any possible metaphorical grasp other than because you say so. Especially since you still know nothing other than in that scene I choose to compare it to sexual assault, but you have zero actual context for what I mean.

“And frankly there’s no need for you to elaborate”
This right here is why you will never succeed in changing a mind on this matter. You have decided everything beforehand. You are not the sole arbiter of anything here, you don’t get to decided what is and is not correct nor do you get to decide what opinions are and are not valid. At best you get to try and change people’s minds, but you don’t even try. You simply want to demand people cater to your whims. Things don’t work like that.

“saying even more moronic and harmful things”
More personal attacks show how little point there is in further hearing you out. It’s like a broken record at this point. I event flatly say I want you to try and change my mind, you don’t even attempt to. I give you another chance to try and be a better person and you just lower yourself. It’s hilarious considering the context of this whole conversation and why you’re mad at me to begin with.

“Please instead keep telling us how mean I am, calling me an “internet tough guy””
Actually I have never said you were mean nor have I called you an internet tough guy. I have, repeatedly, likened your posts to a child throwing a tantrum that people don’t do as they say when they say and it still holds pretty true I find.

“miraculously still less cringeworthy to read than your opinions on fictional rape.”
Yet my opinion had nothing to actually do with rape. Which you would know if you had read what I said and thought for more than a second before pretending your most inane assumptions were correct. I likened one situation to sexual assault, and would have expanded on that if inclined. That says far more about my opinions on the situation in the comic than it does about my opinions on rape.

“This has no place or merit, and I have zero intention of thoughtfully engaging with it, and I’ve explained why enough.”
You’ve explained literally nothing. You just keep saying it has no merit without saying why. You keep calling me a bigot without context and patting yourself on the back for acting like a complete hypocrite.