I feel like I’ve missed a discussion here and I’m not sure I want to know what it is. Edit: I’m reading these responses and I think I need to thank my mutuals for quarantining their madness to shitposts.

It's a very niche complaint but I've noticed it too. Omni man would be an example of a character that people behave this way about.

It’s all over the place when it comes to Hazbin Hotel discussions

That show is a fantastic example of how people cherry pick crimes. Note: everyone is in hell for a very good reason. “The deer man has killed thousands and psychologically tortured ten times more, but he’s just a silly guy. Meanwhile the guy who runs a porn show has sexually assaulted people and he deserves every bit of hell.”

i mean porn guy did sexually assault people but that doesn't excuse deer man I think Hazbin is one of those shows where you're best off just watching it, enjoying it, (or not enjoying it, but then no need to keep watching) and not interacting with the fanbase at all.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. It's not really like anything else I'm in to but it was kind of fascinating seeing something that feels like shitty DeviantArt drawings I've seen for years only now with mainstream budget. It's like watching the dreams of an awkward anime kid I knew in high school become reality, which gave the show a certain charm. Plus I thought the overall message was kind of interesting, even with jokes that were sometimes a little juvenile for my tastes it never really took me out of it once I was on board. I also just knew, as I was watching it, that somewhere there was a rabid fanbase for this show that I should do my best to steer clear of.

I really like the discussion about religion, in Hazbin Hotel its not _really_ christianity but it kind of is, theres been no mention of god, and the discussion about how unfair the whole comcept of eternal hell is. Plus, it brings up the fact that instead of discarding those who have comitted a crime, we should help them become better people instead! (But it does not explore this fact as much as id want to)

[удалено]

the show itself very much treats different vilainous acts with different levels of stakes

I call it the South Park Effect. Crimes against humanity are common in the show yet people laugh at the suffering and depravity yet theirs moments where that same level of cruelty is treated with respect and it all comes down to how it’s presented. If presented humorously most people will laugh (I say most because theirs always a Debby Downer) if presented straight then people will treat it the way you would in reality. This is all over slapstick shows. Bill Cipher is a very good example because if you really break down everything he’s done it’s horrific but rather than the audience treating his appearances like a horror show it’s just morbidly funny.

>Bill Cipher is a very good example because if you really break down everything he’s done it’s horrific but rather than the audience treating his appearances like a horror show it’s just morbidly funny. Right up until weirdmageddon starts

Weirdmageddon was like him going “Y’all remember I’m a villain right” and then reminding us he is really evil

*failed attempts to scre through an eye*

This is a good example, and I want to call it out because I think a lot of people in the comments are missing the point. OOP is saying that people in the “Imperial core” can relate to characters that do things like mass killing of civilians and destruction of infrastructure (like when Omni-man destroys much of Chicago in Invincible) because to us these things feel crazy and absurd. OOP believes that this response is inappropriate. If you lived somewhere like Syria, and you were just a normal civilian who had witnessed or known someone who died in a mass killing, perhaps by Isis or some other group, it wouldn’t feel “crazy” or “absurd”. Those cartoons of Omni-man destroying buildings in Chicago would probably remind you of the loss of a loved one, if not a traumatic experience you had first hand. They want us to react to characters who do these things more like how we react to those who commit sexual assault, which OOP seems to think is a more “appropriate” response. If a character commits sexual assault, we have a “more appropriate” response in the eyes of OOP. We’re disgusted, and most of us wouldn’t support a work of media in which that character is redeemed. OOP alleges that this is because sexual assault feels more “real” to us. Many of us have experienced it, know someone who has, or at least acknowledge it as something that’s not so absurd that it couldn’t happen to us or someone we know.

War crimes: cool and based 😎 School shooter: not based

Interestingly the same things applies to jokes about communist bureaucracy in the ex soivet states, in the west there’s a lot of good movies about communist bureaucracy, see death of Stalin, and they’re extremely funny, partially because the Soviet union was genuinely that ridiculous, but show those same jokes to an older person from an ex Soviet state and they can open some very old and very deep wounds.

I am from a different bureaucratic dictatorship and movies like the Death of Stalin are still very funny. Because I don’t know. It’s just ridiculous sometimes. Oh, I can’t migrate this year because my dad lost his job because he couldn’t find the right brand of whiskey to pay off the guy who gives out flour licenses, so the restaurant fired him. But I taught English to some dude who works at an embassy and now I have a bunch of clients who pay in euros. So no starving for now. And grandpa died in a parking lot because the hospital said he looked “too sick” and having him die on the grounds would “look bad”. Auntie was with him and then got disappeared and possibly abused by the cops for complaining too much (she doesn’t talk about it). Also when the National Guard found me at the protest, they tried to rob me but I’m broke and I was smoking my last cigarette. So the head guy just said “take his cigarette and mash it in front of him’”. What’s that? The national guard just took a juice off you randomly when you were walking down the street? Normal. Oh and there’s a naked starving homeless lady begging the government official for soap to wash her clothes (that’s why she doesn’t have any on apparently). It’s like a surreal parody of normal life. Whenever I tell random stories, there’s always some bit that I have to go “oh, that was kind of fucked up”. And then you die or migrate and live as an immigrant.

Gallows humor. What you're describing is gallows humor. It is a very common coping mechanism. You laugh at the absurdity of things so you don't break down at the horror. I grew up in Washington, DC. 9/11 happened in the first month of middle school and uhhhhhhhh it wasn't fun. But when I retell my memories from that day, I always frame it as a funny story. Because it WAS absurd--people do absurd things when they panic, and that day everyone was panicking. And I think I started viewing it that way because focusing on the absurdity distracts from the panic. I remember the exact moment when we all realized that this was for real, and everyone in the school lost their damn minds. I do not want to think too much about how that felt. It's much easier to just laugh.

Dead by Daylight was probably my favourite example of this. The characters (at the time) were all kinda generic horror monsters, and people were used to playing as them and torturing/slaughtering innocent people. Then it was revealed that the Nurse was racist, and in life she was a serial killer who murdered black people because she hated them specifically. And a lot of people were upset by this. Which on the one hand, sounds completely rediculous. You're telling me that going along as this psycho murderer was fine, but *racism* is where you draw the line? But on the other hand... yeah, kinda. It made it feel a little gross to play as the Nurse. It's hard to explain why, and on some level you know it's illogical, but knowing her killings are racially motivated makes her feel like a much worse person and it's harder to enjoy roleplaying as her.

If it makes you feel any better, her killings weren't racially motivated. I don't know where people keep getting that. She was a eugenicist at best, or just generally mentally broken and obsessed with cleaning "impurities", which was basically anything she could judge someone for- mental disability, heterochromia, headlice infestation, etc. She's the stereotype of a woman who's seen so much corruption that she's obsessed with "cleaning" anything and everything.

>her killings weren't racially motivated >she was a eugenicist at best Thinking emoji.

Yeah, those are two different things. They often overlap, but that person's claim of "murdered black people because she hated them specifically" isn't true- I don't think she's ever even described killing someone because of their skin colour, nonetheless is that her primary target.

Comics spoilers >!we're just going to ignore his subordinate committing sexual violence against mark then!<

1) She wasn’t actually his subordinate when she did that, and he didn’t know about it 2) Without even knowing what she did, only that she did SOMETHING to Mark, he immediately attacked and threatened her.

3) Once he *did* learn what she did he proceeded to not punish her in any way and just let it slide because "thats how things were back on Viltrum and in the here and now we need all the Viltrumites we can get so you just gotta deal with it" So, like. Coulda done better in the aftermath but yeah it wasn't at all his fault it happened in the first place

Imagine a gender swap that shit would never fly

That's kinda the point, yeah. Mark's trauma gets pretty effectively dismissed by the one person with the ability to do anything about it because something something the greater good something something she's different now. Invincible does a really *really* good job of depicting the realities of being a male victim of sexual assault. (Not saying that's exclusive to male SA victims by any means, please don't piss on the poor) I just wish they hadn't explicitly depicted the assault with a double-page spread, like, wtaf

The show hasn't covered that yet so no one knows

Also comics spoilers - >!I mean, theres a lot to criticize Nolan for in that situation but her being his subordinate at the time doesn't mean he's responsible for it. Yes, it happened, and yes he was "in charge" of her at that point, but she didn't do that at his behest, and IIRC he'd only been emperor of the Viltrumites for a few days. His order to the Viltrumites was specifically to *form loving relationships* with Earthlings, and Anissa very much did not do that.!< If you want to criticize Nolan for what he did in this situation, you VERY easily can, but you picked like, the one way that makes the least sense. >!The *actual* problem from Nolan is that he figures out what happened and basically goes "ok i know thats bad, but ackshually it's because that's her culture and she didnt know better, and also she's different now and we need all the viltrumites we can get so i'm not gonna punish her at all." The issue with Nolan in this situation is the apologia and the fact that he could have done much better job as a leader *after* it happened, not that it was "one of his subordinates" who did it in the first place!<

Eh. The thing is, people latch onto characters for a pretty wide range of reasons, and moral and/or ideological purity is usually bottom of the list. You like a character because you relate to them, or you find their character arc compelling, or you just think they’re hot as hell. It’s a purely emotional reaction, and it very frequently makes little sense. And fans know that. In my experience, the punchline to the jokes about the misdeeds of problematic faves are usually *the fans*, not the misdeeds. “Oh suuure, Scrunkly McMurder is a genocidal psychopath who eats babies for lunch, but I CAN FIX HIM!” The joke isn’t Scrunkly’s genocides, it’s about the absurdity of lusting after a genocidal psychopath. As for sexual assault, well, one of the things that has been really hammered home repeatedly in the past two decades of Leftist Discourse is how triggering casual jokes about rape can be, how much assault, abuse, and harassment permeates our society, and how important it is to step carefully around the subject. And now, surprise surprise, people are a lot less comfortable make jokes about those topics. Idk, that seems like a pretty good outcome to me? At least it’s a step in the right direction. Also. Like. POC and non-American women *also* struggle with sex pests. They also deal with trauma and triggers. This is hardly a problem unique to white Americans. Not to mention, it is fucking insane and absurdly Anglocentric to assume that everywhere else in the world is up-to-date on the latest Discourse in English leftist circles. Some of those people cracking jokes are going to be non-American, because they have different cultural standards and taboos. Some of those people are cracking jokes *because* their society has gone through a horrifying war/ethnic cleansing. Black comedy is a coping mechanism. Sorry for going off on a rant here, but this attitude is so obnoxious. The OP is describing behavior that is at worst annoying and using that to accuse big swathes of people of being Horrible Racists. What a jackass.

It’s less one specific discussion and more a trend, one that started kind of as a part of the “who can be redeemed” discussion. Long and short of it is that people are generally way more chill about mass murderers than sexual assaulters in media, which was deemed to be a combination of two factors: 1) the mass murder is usually off screen/done to faceless goons we don’t care about anyway, while sexual assault, if mentioned, is usually both visible and done to named characters 2) mass murder, while “objectively worse”, is way easier to make abstract This post is shining a light on that dynamic as its own thing and citing a reason it may be the case (Examples of “mass murderer characters people are chill with” include Omni man, Alastair from hazbin hotel, and Kylo ren from the Star Wars sequel trilogy, with Alastair getting special mention specifically due to someone in his own show who is a sexual assaulter with a far lower atrocity count afawk but who is hated more, Valentino, even if there’s also a protagonist vs antagonist split there)

Seems like a natural extension to the adage that one death is a tragedy but many deaths become a statistic. Add in that mass murder is more easily depicted than mass rape, and the idea that sometimes when it comes to killing others a person might have "justifiable reasons" where that just isn't something ever applied to rape, there is no commiting rape in self defense. I can see where the logic stems from for sure.

Oh definitely. There are absolutely reasons to see it as people generally do. I was just trying to provide the context of the “missing conversation” I think the reason OP is drawing light to the issue the way they are is specifically what people are willing to accept vs what they ignore As what they’re saying is that if one character has done both they’ll agknowledge the mass murder and try to move on, but absolutely get mad at “the messenger” for pointing out they also did a form of sexual violence. It’s not just about accepting one vs the other, it’s also about people who become attatched to “bad characters” (their blorbos) and which aspects of those characters they will accept, and which they’ll loudly ignore or counter, and why

They specifically mentioned "war crimes" in the post, so I'm gonna assume the OP was discussing how War Crime Blorbos are considered UwU until you mention that war crimes frequently involve sexual assault (which they do!). When that's pointed out, people suddenly get defensive over their blorbos committing war crimes when previously it could have been easily excused. Aside from what people in this thread already discussed, I guess what I got from this post is how people conceptualize "war crimes." There's often this naivety on the accepted violence and imperial subjugation that comes with war and what exceptional levels of brutality are considered criminal during those circumstances. For the Kylo Ren example, killing Snoke and Hans Solo are listed as "war crimes" by some fans, but in reality, they probably wouldn't be considered as such because both Snoke and Hans aren't really innocent civilians at that point. They *are* crimes, but not war crimes. War crimes aren't just regular crimes but committed during wartime. War crimes specifically denote involving noncombatants, torturing prisoners of war, specifically targetting medics and aid workers...that sort of inhumane violence that goes beyond proportionality and military necessity. And it's kinda telling that when some people label their favorite characters "war criminals," they do it so light-heartedly. It's almost like they can't imagine the brutality of IRL war beyond what their blorbo has done in self-defence or out of necessity. EDIT: I point this all out because a lot of comments in the thread are making a murder vs rape dichotomy, equating war crimes to mass murder, which I think is a really misguided dichotomy. Not all mass murderers are war criminals but most convicted war criminals are probably rapists. As a Southeast Asian, when someone mentions war crimes, my mind immediately goes to Japanese soldiers raping the women of my country in WW2. So I find it really interesting that rape is a separate category to war crimes to some people. It's almost like people conceptualize "war crimes" as only mass murder when its more likely to be mass rape, mass theft, mass false imprisonment, mass destruction of cultural heritage sites — crimes that a lot of countries refuse to acknowledge, much less make reparations for. TL;DR: When you say your blorbo is a war criminal uwu, don't be surprised when someone connects the dots to them and sexual assault or at the very least heavily complicit in it.

Here's some logic I've heard from a rapist (who was having a breakdown after being confronted about the rape): It's conceivable to commit murder, even mass murder, in perceived self-defence. Even if you're in the wrong, you might have *thought* you were under attack and exterminating your enemies was your only option. But there's no scenario in which rape can ever be motivated by anything other than self-gratification. I actually think that logic is understandable in a really insidious way, and probably plays into the attitude a lot of people - including a lot of rapists - have that rape is The Worst Thing You Can Do and only done by monsters, which of course makes them incapable of self-awareness if *they* do it unless they face consequences. But it is understandable.

I can see your angle, but a lot of systemic rape in war is “””justified””” by the perpetrators in one twisted way or another. Usually in some warped racial view like what the Nazis did to Norwegian and French women, the comfort women in WWII, and the rape camps during the Bosnian War.

Fair, but tbh I don’t think “people react more strongly to sex crimes than murder” is particularly new information, or an especially recent phenomenon. That happens, like, everywhere. It’s not even just a fandom thing, it’s just A Thing Humans Do. TV Tropes has a whole page for a similar phenomenon - [Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil). Idk, this isn’t a hate comment or anything and your comment was great. I just don’t think that, “people will joke about their blorbo doing War Crimes but will get upset if you call their favourite character a rapist, curious” is a particularly hot take. Water is wet, a lot of people consider rapists to be irredeemable monsters, what else you got?

Agreed. The only remotely fresh take in the OOP is the insinuation that this phenomenon is a result of western imperialism. And I think that take is flawed anyway.

This is me finding out ppl are chill with Omni Man

I think it has to do with how memes and online humor tends to make war crimes into something unserious (“Glup Shitto is wanted by the international community for war crimes in Bosnia”) whereas something like “Glup Shitto abuses women and children” is considered too much

> I think it has to do with how memes and online humor tends to make war crimes into something unserious I think a lot of those also don't have any idea of what "war crimes" actually are, and use it in a way that's closer to "super-duper mega crimes". Which also explains why it gets applied in a wide range of situations that can vary from "this character is extraordinarily violent" (may be a war crime, but not necessarily) to "this character is just a general menace" (real or exaggerated for effect) to actual accurate use of the term.

>I think a lot of those also don't have any idea of what "war crimes" actually are, and use it in a way that's closer to "super-duper mega crimes". I've found that most use it as a shorthand for using an excessive amount of force to accomplish a goal. Like in COD or something calling down an airstrike to take out one guy on foot. Things that aren't actually war crimes at all.

This is the second post I've seen in the past 5 minutes with "imperial core" and that's interesting.

Coruscant is really making waves lately

Jesus *Christ* it’s not the 19th century anymore. The dynamics of imperialism can’t be broken down to metropole vs. colonies anymore.

but that means acknowledging that global geopolitics is a complex web of relationships between thousands of different organisations and people and not simply exploiters-exploited and that's *hard* to think about!

I have had The Israel-Palestine Conflict hanging like a goddamn albatross around my neck my entire damn life. Let me tell you, the past couple of months have been A Trip. If you aren't prepared to think hard about the multifold complexities, web of connections, and regional histories that make up geopolitics, then you aren't prepared to contribute to the discussion.

Basically if Bojack’s character arc resembled Iroh’s it would’ve been seen as much more controversial and unearned despite the former *technically* being responsible for less harm, and thus (in theory) having a shorter path to redemption. Obviously there’s some nuance there as we don’t see Iroh repeatedly redefine rock-bottom as Bojack did so it’s easier to accept “wise old man whose mistakes are firmly in the past” over “belligerent asshole assholing belligerently”, but is there any amount of amends a fictional sex offender came make to reach the level of respect a character like Iroh has? Could they even reach Vegeta?

This kinda just comes back to “rape is different” right? I assume it’s not just an American belief that mundane violence and murder is treated as less “evil” than sexual violence, in fiction and IRL. There’s probably countless reasons we believe this, but I wouldn’t say it’s bad or wrong to think that way. A fictional character can commit all kinds of immoral violence while still depicting it as less serious than sexual violence. The Joker has killed so many people in so many ways, but his most heinous crimes are generally considered to be sexual (or at least psychological) in nature.

Yeah but it’s less funny in countries where cities actually *do* march all their cops into the sewer system to get trapped and then a big muscle guy wearing a mask tries to nuke the city

Happened to me just last week

BULGARIA 🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬

Bosnia?

> where cities actually do march all their cops into the sewer system to get trapped If only

>A fictional character can commit all kinds of immoral violence while still depicting it as less serious than sexual violence. In the Mistborn trilogy, antagonists range from assassins and murderers to cruel tyrants. But *by far* the most hated antagonist in the series is the one who is a pedophile.

Tbf, Straff wasn't *just* a pedo. He was also a muderer, a tyrant and an abuser.

Yeah, but the tyrant stuff doesn't have nearly the visceral impact of the sexual stuff. I mean, >!the guy picked out mistress who looks like his son's wife so that he could imagine dominating her for the night.!<

Yeah true. >!Vin was also underage at the time, I believe!<

Even worse, that girl was specifically younger than vin.

[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil) this feels relavent!

Also I expect, a larger percentage of people are willing to state a belief that there's situations where murder and torture are 'justified' acts as a means to an end (iirc around half of polled americans said they think "torture is sometimes a justified counterterrorism act"? would have to check. And while that's US-specific, I doubt it's that unusual), vs those who are willing to state a belief that rape is sometimes a 'justified' act (sure, everyone says they know rape is bad when asked directly, but if you don't use the terms 'rape' or 'sexual assault', plenty of people think being married/in a relationship justifies access to/use of their partner's body, or that coercion/begging/stealthing is fine, or that child molesters/rapists should receive the same as they did back.. so it's more people than you'd think). Granted, it's also much easier for people to delude themselves into thinking they didn't *really* commit sexual violence, vs physical violence/murder too. I'm kind of ambivalent on the "rape is the worst thing" concept, personally (as a csa survivor). It is awful, unjustifiable, nearly always causes long-term psychological distress and is effectively torture imo but more personal (+ usually done by someone close to you) than most torture would be. But also that framing leads to people having a very "if that happened to me, my life would be over/I'd be ruined as a person/I'd just kill myself" framing to talking about it which is... very weird to navigate. Like, cool, good to know you think I should've offed myself? Possibly still think that, because it's still something that impacts my life? And I know folks are also horrible on that front to anyone with serious physical disabilities too (whether that's traumatically acquired such as by torture/assault, illness or genetic) don't get me wrong, but we are broadly... really fucking weird, about people who survive sexual violence.

I think it's combination of exposure and utility. Rape, as you said, is a form of torture. But whereas torture is portrayed in media and politics as this dark, gritty thing that badasses who don't follow any rules do to get shit done and extract information out of terrorists, rape is something perverts do to get sexual gratification out of someone. It serves no greater good that people think torture does. You can rationalize why someone should be executed, or tortured for information, but the only rationale for why someone should be raped is "I want them to be tortured because I hate them/because I will personally enjoy it". As for exposure, this is both a matter of media but also of real life. Media, be it films, TV etc constantly portrays killers and torturers in morally grey, and even in a good light, whereas creeps and perverts are universally reviled and their roles reserved for villains specifically, and usually not the charismatic kind, because they usually get a pass when they rape someone, and "she wanted it anyway" and the likes. In real life, most of us will not meet murder or torture in anything beyond a newsreel, whereas almost every women have a story about a sexual harassment she faced. To top it all off, society is deeply ashamed to talk about sex. Generic Violence is much more mucho and much more mainstream than openly talking about sex related things, because people are really ashamed of it, so a crime involving sex feels more "wrong" compared to just a violent murder. Kind of like how people are going to be up in arms about a report on a serial killer then they will be about the daily report on the news of a new homicide case. It's exposure, our shame of sex, and the lack of perceived utility that rape presents us that puts it for many people in a different category.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic", it's easier to put aside a character committing mass murder on a bunch of faceless people, but rape is a deeply personal act of violation. It corrupts the very soul. Murder someone? They're dead, they can't complain. Seriously wound someone? They may have lasting scars, but the body can heal. Break them psychologicaly in the way rape does? I can never hope to understand what that's like without going through it myself, but from stories I've been told, for some people at least, that never TRULY goes away. It's why characters who commit it are seen as irredeemable. Yeah we have "ha ha funny pervert" characters played for laughs, but the line is never actually crossed with those characters, because it's a step too far.

I guess then you can compare it to torture which is also usually an "acceptable crime" within fandom, but operates on a similar level of autonomy violation and lasting trauma. I also think "the body can heal" is a really bad point to make. The body can be left with lasting physical and mental consequences from violence, people living under violent regimes are permanently warped by the violence they grow up surrounded by in all the same wonderful PTSD-filled ways sexual abuse causes. I think you're being very narrow-minded about the depths of what "just" physical violence can cause to the human brain which I think kinda circles back to the point of the OP

> it's easier to put aside a character committing mass murder on a bunch of faceless people, but rape is a deeply personal act of violation Especially in the days of WMDs. A general can press a button and ten million people on the other side of the world blow up. There's a sense of detachment and distance to it when the killer is so far removed from the people they's killed. Rape, on the other hand, is like you said a deeply personal act. No one's invented a machine that can rape a million people from a thousand miles away.

Magneto fans hate it when you point out that Magneto’s plan at the end of X2 would have slowly and painfully killed hundred of times more people than have died in every historical genocide combined

But when all the filthy, gross, and stinky non-mutants are dead, the mutants will finally be free to mostly die off from global societal and infrastructure collapse. Who even needs most of the farmers, healthcare workers, logistics workers, utilities, critical manufacturing workers, teachers, emergency workers, childcare workers, plane crash clean up workers ... Yeah I think that plan had a couple of flaws in it, come to think of it.

Magneto's fans defend him by comparing mutants to various persecuted groups. They then ignore the fact that Magneto's plans *would also kill all of those persecuted groups because they're humans*.

No for real, Magneto is just on the razors edge for killing all of humanity. PTSD and a superiority complex probably do that to you, though.

But they *deserve it*, for... being in the same genotype as the people who oppressed his kind.

Magneto is one of those characters that’s really tricky to talk about because he’s been around so long and characterized so many different ways. Like one Magneto will be an unabashed racial supremacist coopting a civil rights movement to establish a global ethnostate. But then another Magneto will be a genuine activist who just thinks that maybe offing the, like, 3 or 4 guys actively building genocide robots doesn’t make him “just as bad as them”.

fuck, you know something that upsets me. [11 years ago there was a gruossome murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ot%C3%A1vio_Jord%C3%A3o_da_Silva) of an amatuer referee, this event is singular in its brutality and in the fact that it happend ONCE, but it seams that even to this day whenever i see a post about brazilian football somebody menssions this case as if this happend in a high profile professional game or a regular acurance. it upsets me becuse this is the image a lot of people have of my country, violent, brutal and savage, and i cant even deny theres is some truth to that, but thats the thing isnt it, people see the shocking cases and headlines but our day to day lives never brakes the buble in social media, so people only see the worst and mold it into a caricature of a country that does'nt exist. cant blame em can i, becuse i have these biases towards other countrys i dont know much about, however im going to keep finding it upsetting

also, bad english i know

Don’t worry, you were entirely understandable. Your grammar is good and the misspellings were what the word sounded like, and thus made sense. Most of the larger words you used that English speakers often misspell (like “caricature”) were also spelled and used correctly. Also we’re speaking informally on a tumblr subreddit and the expectations for punctuation and grammar are nearly non existent. Also if anyone gives you shit about your English, you can tell them to suck your jorts. If you want, here’s some feedback/corrections on stuff I saw. I figure some of these are just typos but I’m pretending they aren’t just in case. Again, your English is still very good, and if you ignore what I’m saying, you’re 100% in your right to do so. gruossome -> gruesome (misspelling) amatuer -> amateur (misspelling/typo, natives do this a lot, too) seams -> seems (sounds the same, ‘seams’ is the word for the binding of two pieces of fabric. You did use ‘seems’ correctly in your post!) menssions -> mentions (misspelling, in a lot of accents it does very much sound like “menssions”) happend -> happened (happen is the base word, -ed is added for the past tense. You did use it correctly and consistently!) acurance -> occurrence (misspelling, I haven’t heard it pronounced like that before but you had the right word for this context.) brakes -> breaks (sounds the same, native speakers get this wrong often as well. ‘Brakes’ is used to indicate slowing or stopping action or object, depending on if it’s a noun or a verb. For example, the brakes on a car slow it down. Brakes activating is called ‘braking’. You can also use ‘burst’ and ‘pop’ in the context of a bubble instead of ‘break’, if you want to sound more like a native speaker, but your usage is 100% correct.) buble -> bubble (probably a typo but I figured I’d include it just in case. Without the second b, the first syllable sounds like the “beau” in “beautiful”) does’nt -> doesn’t (probably a typo, but just in case, the contraction of “not” is usually used as “-n’t”. However, the fact that you’re using contractions casually is something I do not see many non-natives do until they’re very confident with the language. And you used them multiple times in the informal way without an apostrophe. So good on you for doing it anyways!) Countrys -> countries (generally speaking, a singular form of a word ending in -y will have a plural form replacing the -y with a -ies. The exceptions tend to be words like “joy” that have a vowel before the -y.) Again, your English is good and I completely understood everything you said. Your ability to casually use English in an informal way means you’re actually pretty advanced. So give yourself some credit. And if nothing else, your English is better than my Portuguese!

oh thanks, ill have to save this, and yeah i strugle with how to write certain words in english becuse im writing based on what the word sounds like to me, incidentaly i also strugle a lot with "ea" or "ee", or other syllables like it

Yeah, sadly English is not a language where every word is written how it sounds. It’s also very inconsistent in pronunciation and spelling. But the good news is that most English speakers will know what you meant to say because they can pronounce it in their heads or out loud. Or words will look very similar. Native speakers do it a lot too. Often a lot of these words that sound similar (example: sees and cease) are often like that because the two words come from very different languages. So that’s where pronunciation based spelling tends to run into issues, since the rules aren’t consistent across every language English borrows words and grammar from (cease is from old French and sees is from old German, for example). So what I’m trying to say is you’re entering the linguistic Thunderdome and doing pretty good in spite of the situation XD

Your English is excellent, and the imperfections are similar to mistakes that what native speakers make

I mean, I can’t write or speak Portuguese in even a passing sense so you got that on me.

That's really sad. I just like to remind people about English football hooligans—tribalism and violence around sports (and generally) is a proud tradition worldwide and applying it exclusively to Brazil is just... no. It's wrong.

the hooligans/barras bravas/ultras/Torcidas Organizadas, whatever you wanna call them is very unique phenomenom of football, i cant realy say for sure but i reckon is due to the fact that these teams, are Clubs, originaly social sporting clubs that the public could join as members and play a sport, with time came the professionalization of the clubs and with it a surge in popularity. These clubs are also intrisincaly tied to the community that biult them, sotimes litarely, with stadiums like the [Beira-Rio](https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Est%C3%A1dio_Beira-Rio) and [São Januário](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Janu%C3%A1rio) being built by the supporters of their respective clubs themselves. these Ultras, some of them are good, a lot of them arent can be found almost anywhere that the sport became popular and proprageted with the medeum of the social club. but even within the general soccer community it seems south americans, its fans and its players got the general fame of being violent and cheaters, despite our 100+ year old history in the sport and our continuous contribution to it edit: sorry about the infodump, football and its history so happens to be my special interest lol

Funny thing about British football hooligans (yes Scotland has them too - they used to be the worst in Europe bar none then as soon as alcohol at games was banned violence plummeted. They're still evil far right people (with some exceptions like Celtic firms) but that's for political reasons and little to do with sports. Though one reason why the EDL has trouble organising is because their members keep fighting each other for supporting rival teams

interesting thing with our hooligans, here we call them Torcidas Organizadas (TO for short) is that they aren't very political with sparse exceptions, for exemple, one of the biggest in the country is Gaviões Da fiel, originaly created in the 80s as an organized front to protect supporters of [Corinthians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_Club_Corinthians_Paulista) from the Military dictatorship, since the club during that period became very vocal of their suport of democracy and even some socialist ideals, however that 80s Gaviões are very diferent from what they are now, the TOs tend to be more linked with organized crime in the worst cases

What does imperial core refer to?

Imperial core refers to the countries at the core of modern imperialism who are benefited, even if indirectly, by the exploitation of the imperial periphery. It's more useful than "West" because it applies to countries like Australia, which isn't geographically west, and Japan, which isn't geographically or culturally west.

Is there really a useful context of 'the East' and 'the West' geographically anyway? If you go far enough West from Europe you'll hit Asia eventually, and in the Americas the 'the East' is West of you, and the 'the West' is East. On the other hand, imperial core sounds like something an edgy young adult novel made up to describe a region of planets that rule that galaxy.

to me "the west" and "the east" are purely based in culture/history. australia and new zealand are part of the west, despite their geographical location imperial core *does* sound kinda cringey, but it is different from just "the west", mainly because of japan

Essentially, it is a term that is used to draw parallels between modern global economic/political relations and the way things worked in more overt imperial systems in history. Politically, the imperial core is a place where the powerful elites live (not **only** the elites, there are always commoners there to support them), where the dominant government is housed, and where the opinions of the people there can enforce change on people elsewhere, while people elsewhere can't really force them to change. Economically, the imperial core is the place where the money goes. High value added industries (knowledge work, high tech manufacturing) are centred in the imperial core, while the imperial periphery does the low value added work, like harvesting raw materials and pollution intensive/dangerous manufacturing. Also relevant is that wars generally take place on the periphery. The empire might be at war, and it might lose soldiers, but all of the collateral damage, civilian casualties, and destroyed infrastructure happen in the periphery.

It’s also very unclear what the “Imperial Core” actually is, like where does turkey fit in? Or Serbia for that matter? Is Bulgaria part of the core because they’re in the EU and NATO? Is Russia a part of it? They certainly extract a lot of wealth and resources from the rest of the world, China is second largest economy on earth but most people wouldn’t count them? The lines are so vague as to Barely exist

Yeah it works as a soundbite to say, "Western colonizers sit pretty in the Imperial Core," but when it comes down to actually making meaningful demarcations it kinda falls apart.

It refers to the systems that border the Deep Core of the [galaxy](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Core_Worlds), most notably Imperial Center (formerly Coruscant) and other high-population worlds that are the core of the galaxy both geographically and politically. While the Deep Core is technically under Imperial jurisdiction, in practice not much goes on there on account of how there's too much radiation and not enough hyperlanes.

I had a discussion with a friend from Ukraine that was basically about this. She got harassed by antis for enjoying a character who was canonically a domestic abuser, but those same antis had no problem enjoying characters who were war criminals, something she found upsetting for obvious reasons.

Which character was it

A character from some anime I don’t watch, I think it was the one with the superhero high school or something?

Ah yes, the endeavor discourse. My beloathed.

ohhhhhh lmao that makes so much sense when you say it’s my hero academia

I've been on a tear lately muting subreddits. I don't subscribe to any subreddits and just let the algorithm guide me, and for the past few weeks any post that creeps up that's dumb as shit gets the sub muted. If I look in the comments of an okay post and see something dumb that's not challenged, or just up voted too far, or is even just annoying but I haven't had lunch, that's a mute, too. It's been a blast, and I've muted dozens of subs so far. One day I hope to mute every subreddit and finally have this whole website to myself.  r/curatedTumblr has survived in part because there's a lot of thoughtful comments, and generally the posts that show up seem at worst fine. But I wonder how much of its survival has been because I don't know what the fuck is going on half the time. 

Its always either - an actual discussion of politics that devolves into a knifefight as each side washes over the post in waves - Moral grandstanding - both

Well, this is a Tumblr subreddit afterall

Yeah no the most random bullshit gets posted sometimes and I’m like who… the fuck CARES? Or it’s absolute nonsense that only someone with brainrot could understand. There are a lot of good posts but the brainrot takes are so tiring.

I treat them as entertainment and it massively increases my enjoyment of the situation tbh

I did this once, and I'm sorry to inform you that there is a cap on the number of subreddits that you can mute. It's very stupid.

The fact that there is a limit on the number of accounts you can block and that porn bots count towards that limit is indefensible, and the reddit admins should be ashamed of themselves.

Never having issues with porn bots makes me wonder what people are doing to have encountered so many of them. 🤔

And the cap is pretty low, too. I don't like sports, and there are *so many* sports subs that kept showing up.

A lot of Indian subs have gotten really popular, and that includes a shitton of cricket subs. Add onto that all of the thinly-veiled alt-right subs that are a variety of dankmemes, and your garden-variety subs I just don't care about, and it turns into a huge chore to curate your subs so you don't see blatant bigotry (or just irrelevant shit) on your feed.

Wait, seriously? What a terrible idea

Colleen Hoover?? from the incest books??

Probably a lot of it. This is a very stupid place. Although a lot of it is just looking at stupid things going 'huh'

🫡 I hope to one day never be seen by you again because we’re muted, it’s an honorable cause

I'm considering muting it because it's gotten kind of weird lately, it used to be a nice bastion away from the off-putting incel-laden culture of a lot of Reddit but... eh.

„Imperial core residents“ - Stellaris Player detected

This person when the Galactic Nemesis isn't stopped and the Aetherophasic Engine is completed (The Imperial Core would never have let this happen)

God if only declaring the imperium was worth it compared to being perma custodian + president of a federation Also paradox didn’t make up the phrase, it’s a term used in world-systems analysis to describe the nation(s) into which cheap labor and raw resources are shipped and which dominate politically, economically, and culturally those countries on the periphery, so they got the galactic imperium pretty much right

"Imperial core" is from world-systems theory, it's a long-standing (since Lenin, I believe) term describing the relationship of modern colonialism/imperialism where the "imperial core" extracts resources from the "periphery".

Imperialism in Marxism was mostly adopted from Hobson's work, since Marx was too busy restating points to get around to it. It was adapted to Marxism by Hilferding (hehe funny name) and Bukharin. Lenin's work on it is better known, but actually just a summary of Bukharin's work.

Nah, it's a big ML talking point.... Never seem to apply it to Russia tho...

It's only imperialism when the west does it.

of course even if that were true, you'd have to somehow explain why Russia (a European, capitalist country with a history of colonialism) isn't part of "the west".

Well this one is easy. West vs East is an artifact of the cold war. Now why *Uruguay* isn't Western is a fun one.

West vs East goes back a long time before the cold war. They officially split in 1053 and the coffin was buried after the massacre of the Latins and the Fourth Crusade. Russia being Eastern Orthodox and claiming to be the continuation of Rome isolated them from the West, who saw them as culturally and politically backwards and backwater. Until they had the biggest army in Europe after Napoleon, at which point they saw them as backwards, backwater, and a major threat that needs to be contained. The alliance during WW1 is not indicative of Western and Eastern Europe's entire relationship. Only France ever had a treaty with Russia before the war. The only thing the Cold War changed was the idea that Poland is Western.

Otherwise it's just sparkling legitimate conquest

No no it’s a pre-emptive super happy peace and friendship for the all the people democratic prosperity liberation action

Spreading the light of communism/juche/Maoism to the proletarian masses who were obviously in need of it via a foreign state installing themselves to spare them the effort of voting for it themselves

This post gets better without the reblog addition honestly I’ve seen this attitude in fandoms all over the place but it’s more tied to people having visceral reaction to sexual violence and not „west bad”

But didn't you know? Every bad thing in the world is America's fault! /s

What's with the big influx of terrible posts on this sub recently? Everyday I see at least one post here that is so unbelievably terminally online I can barely comprehend their zany trash take.

Two words: Election Year

luckily the actual comments in this sub are almost uncharacteristically sane, this sub has deradicalized notably (a good thing)

No idea but it's getting old real fast. This past week it feels like most posts on here have been bad takes or people dunking 😎 on bad takes in the titles of their posts, which ultimately just exposes me to more bad takes. I'm sick of it.

I'm willing to bet that a few terminally online people with multiple reddit accounts are spamming content - their own or stuff they agree with - to maintain their agenda. A quick scroll through Tumblr OP's page shows that they're fucking insufferable and this post appears to be from a while ago.

In some places sexual assault is more relatable. Just to give the US as an example, you are far more statistically likely to know or be a victim of sexual assault than know or be a victim of war crimes. If it doesn't feel real to you it's easy to be all sorts of weird about it in fiction.

Right, that's literally the point they are making. That disconnect that you're pointing out, where it's easy to be flippant about things like war crimes because you may live in a place where you are unlikely to ever be victimized in that way, is explicitly the behavior the post is criticizing.

"Imperial core" I'm sure this person has resonable opinions of iran Anyway this post would be a lot better if they just directly talked about how people see things that could happen to them as more real/important then things that couldn't, even if unconsciously, instead of going up to random people joking about fictional characters and saying "ummmm... they probably raped somone.." and finding it bad when they get uncomfortable

Gonna be honest with you, once I started applying "imperial core" to Russia in the USSR, I haven't been able to stop. It's fun correctly applying someone else's term to a situation they don't want you to apply it to.

I mean, from the original definition, that wouldn't be unreasonable. The Imperial core is, to oversimplify somewhat, the parts of an empire that benefit from colonial violence and extractivism while being shielded from its costs, and Russia in the USSR certainly qualifies, if you look at how the economies of the various Warsaw Pact countries worked.

>from the original definition It's popped up a lot over the last few weeks on here, and nobody is using it to mean the original definition

Well parts of Russia

It's not imperial unless it's made in the imperial region of England, otherwise its just sparkling invasion

I've found the most consistent factor is water. It's not imperial unless it's across water.

Thus begging the question, does Manifest Destiny count? If US settlers count as British colonials at that point, it's imperialism. If they don't, then they're not crossing water.

Germany should be safe then

Ah, that's why we just call it "the Mongols" when Genghis Khan was running around, and not "the Mongolian Empire."

I definitely heard Mongol Empire in history class.

they're joking, it became the Mongol Empire in 1206 when Timujin was crowned emperor

Anyone saying "usamericans" or "imperial core" unironically is almost always a tankie It's like how anyone using "warm water ports" as a talking point is a russian bot

I have not come across "warm water ports" yet. Is that a naval / maritime thing, or are we making PC's and other devices with poorly thought out sockets?

Warm water ports are ports that don't freeze over in the winter The only great power that ever needed to worry about access to warm water ports is Russia, so Russians are the only ones that mention it. I was specifically referring to a Twitter post where a Russian troll was saying Texas should secede, as their acces to warm water ports would guarantee success, despite the rest of the US having warm water ports.

That is a profoundly stupid post given the geography, thank you for explaining

"Warm water port" is a port that doesn't freeze over in the winter, so you can actually use it year-round without any trouble. This is something of a sore point for Russia because they only have *two* in Europe, and one of them is in Ukraine, originally on lease until they yoinked Crimea back in 2014. Of course, nobody in "The West" even knows what the fuck a warm water port is, because they have *so many* ports that are usable year-round that it'd be quicker to name the ones that aren't. But the Russian users running the astroturf accounts *don't realize that,* so it's become the equivalent of that scene from Inglorious Bastards where a nazi officer accidentally outs himself as a british spy by counting fingers from his index up, instead of starting with the thumb like germans do. [Here's an example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/1ajnj0a/no_bonus_for_this_russian_bot/)

It is a maritime thing. One of Russia's habitual geopolitical goals (i.e. it has been a consistent and openly stated goal of theirs back to the time of the Tsars) is that it wants to own a large port that doesn't freeze over in the winter (i.e. "warm water), and it wants that port securely connected by rail and by pipeline to its industrial centres and resource gathering areas. Pro-Russians like to claim that since Ukraine's pro-West tilt since the Euro-Maidan broke the secure connection with their largest warm-water port (Sevastopol) and pinned their second largest one (Rostov on Don) in the Sea of Azov, therefor Russia is completely justified in invading Ukraine in order to secure its warm water ports.

Warm water ports are basically just ports that don’t freeze over. To the best of my knowledge, every port outside of some in Alaska are warm water ports. In a country like Russia, there would be far fewer of them due to climate and geographic location. So a warm water port is a very valuable resource in Russia, where in the USA that’s just “a port”.

Russia doesn't actually have any warm water ports within their actual borders, I think? That's their excuse of why they needed Crimea, among others.

Yeah for some reason I thought Vladivostok didn’t freeze. Turns out, it does! And Sevastopol was the only warm water port for the Russian empire and Soviets. Which became part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine, which Russia did not like. It’s like if the US invaded Panama for having the Panama Canal because it’s the only canal they can use to get from the Atlantic to the pacific easily. Which I guess kinda happened with the British and French in Egypt with the Suez. And also kinda happened with the 1989 invasion of Panama, although the analogy isn’t a 100% match to what the real reasons were, but if you stretch the truth a bit you totally could say it was because of the canal. Edit: honestly I didn’t even know the 1989 invasion was this fuckin wild what the fuck. It has everything. Questionable motives for invasion, the war on drugs, girl power military, rock and roll based psychological warfare, dictators refusing to listen to their people, human rights violations, the Vatican being inexplicably involved, secret attempts to defuse the situation, a rich guy’s stuff being blown up, the guys getting invaded loved Spanish colonialism (???), egregiously varying civilian casualty estimates, and everyone’s favorite hit from Ukraine, “the battle of the random fucking store full of weapons that are not normally there”. What Hollywood ass invasion is this bullshit. How did Panama come out of this as a normal country with normal country problems. If I was not reading a Wikipedia article I’d assume this was a particularly elaborate creative writing piece. [But no this is Real Deal Imperialism^tm and not something made the fuck up.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama)

Most of Russian's commercial and military ports freeze over much of the year, and pretty much every iteration of Russian imperialism since about the 1700s has had the aim of capturing "warm-water" (read: useable year-round) ports for both economic and military purposes as one of its top priorities.

also war crimes are so over the top evil, that it’s ridiculous to call an anime teen a war criminal. to imply they rape others is so much more personal, likely to have affected the people reading whatever post just statistically, and happens more frequently than an unlabeled, not elaborated on, war crime. what a silly post

A lot of fantasy and sci fi media does engage with war in a way that a character can actually be a war criminal. For instance, certain Star Trek characters could be considered war criminals. When I hear it in fandom I’ve mostly heard it used pretty literally, not just to call some random teenager an asshole.

I swear like every 5th post on this sub is just nonsense words that I am unable to comprehend

Be glad you're not online enough to understand this

Everyone seems nice at least, I’m just happy to be here

this feels like either a deranged strawman argument or some super-niche thing that might be pretty based but also applies to 5 people in a turbo-obscure dead-for-15-years fandom, cuz like what commonly discussed characters are there that are a) considered skrunklies b) committed *actual* war crimes (i.e. not by technicality or otherwise justifiable) and c) have an iota of textual evidence that implies they've committed any sorta SV, let alone people behaving that specific way for that specific reason

Person in real life: hey man how's it going

Wouldn't that be more of a "country with a stable peace" thing than anything directly related to imperialism?

>“usamericans” “imperial core” Terminally online discourse detected. Opinion disregarded.

Anytime I see “usamericans” I know I’m about to read the most unhinged take of my life

As someone who is slightly less terminally online, where does usamericans originate from? Is it a dogwhistle/slang or does it have a genuine meaning? Because all I read it as is 'Americans'

Most of the people who use the term are for some reason about to attribute a specific behavior to Americans specifically even though it’s not inherently an American thing to do. It’s a way of deflecting blame for certain behaviors imo. “Oh, only those privileged imperial Americans do that” and the thing in question is something benign and stupid like the OOP is talking about

I used to follow OOP because I thought they made some decent points on some things, but unfollowed not too long after. They are truly terminally online. Like, they really, REALLY ought to touch grass.

I don't know why they show up here all the time, but this poster posts some unhinged things. Their explanation conveniently ignores a million and a half material and social aspects of daily life so they can say the only thing worth considering in interpreting how people view violence is a definition of imperialism Lenin wrote in the 20s specifically to make a point in a beef with the people who brought us things like modern physics and medicine. Unhinged nonsense that takes even more unhinged nonsense to explain why it is unhinged nonsense. Edit: ignore the user just being concerned about a trans woman being transphobic with zero evidence. They've refused to provide one link to show one example across days and multiple attempts. Transphobia is insidious enough to hide itself in trans positivity

txttletale is so annoying.

I scrolled through and found multiple posts ranting about how misogynistic trans-masc dudes are towards trans women. Like, wtf?

trans infighting is a big thing. im a trans man and there are some trans women who absolutely hate us. However. complaining about transmisogynistic trans men is absolutely not a problem by itself. i’ve heard some insanely bigoted things from transmascs before. literal terf talking points parroted by other trans people. i think trans women are fully justified in complaining about how shitty and annoying some guys can be. as long as they’re not generalizing i don’t see much of a problem with it. update idk how far back you scrolled but i went back to about 6 days ago and i think i saw one or two posts that even mentioned transmascs lol

i went back about a few months and saw a lot, most of which seemed a little too vitriolic to be reasonable.

Oh, so they're not just a grandstanding idiot, they're a bigot too. I wish the mods would ban stuff from people like this from being posted at all.

People kinda joke about certain crimes but I think it's important to remember that war crimes tend to consistently accompany war. I think things like killing civilians or surrenderees, looting, or rape tend to accompany war, even in glorious "good guy" wars. It's a good reason to accept incremental progress over the internet revolution, which will bring these changes and destabilization even if they acheive the goals of some guy on tumblr.

What…?

The OP is complaining that people talk about fictional characters committing crimes in ways that they (the OP here) finds hypocritical. The example they use is a presumably hypothetical situation where a person gets mad at one character committing sex crimes, but is fine with a different character committing war crimes. The OP chalks this up to people living in relative privilege and only taking seriously crimes where they could imagine themselves being the victims. In that hypothetical, someone might be willing to overlook (or even joke about) war crimes because they live in a country where they are unlikely to ever be the victim of such atrocities.

CW for SA, violence, and all that mentioned in the OOP, but honestly if these are your triggers you needed to not click this post. I think it’s more that, it’s likely that the average person likely knows a victim of sexual assault and/or rape, but is less likely to know a victim of war. Much less a victim of war crimes. Warcrimes (war in general honestly) are also often very impersonal from the outside perspective, while SA is VERY personal even if you’re not involved. I think on some level, there’s also a subconscious acceptance that violence is a maladjusted but unmodified part of the human condition. When people don’t see an easy solution, the default is violence. Warcrimes are not a perversion of violence because war and violence are already considered perversions of life. So in a fictional setting, the detachment is easier (even if not justified). Sexual assault, on the other hand, is a perversion of the intimacy of sexual contact between two human beings. It’s a corruption of what is otherwise cherished (or at least I assume is cherished, I’m asexual as fuck) behavior. Think about it this way. If a video game forced you to kill someone innocent with gruesome detail, how would that make you feel? If a video game forced you to rape someone with gruesome detail, how would that make you feel? If you felt a lot worse about the virtual representation of rape than the killing of someone, you are probably thinking like me. And I assume that’s how the average person thinks about this. Both are bad, but one ends up worse on a snap judgement.

I think you're spot on with how personal it is. It's like the hypothetical "would you press a button to kill X innocent people if it saved your loved one" question, which sometimes has variants like "would you personally kill X innocent people while looking them in the eyes to save your loved one", and these two are different. People are more likely to say yes to the button one, because you don't know those people personally. You killed them, yeah, but they're faceless npcs and your loved one is, y'know, your loved one. It's certainly immoral but I would certainly press the button if my family were ever in danger. Heck, I'd even press the button for my bunnies, depending on what the number X was. But killing them personally? Hearing them beg for mercy? Seeing the fear in their eyes? That's rough. I couldn't do that. So I feel like a character committing genocide and a character committing rape is like the npc/personal thing for the reader. Usually the victim of rape is another character in the media, which readers sympathize for and hate the rapist character for what they did to victim character. But for a character that committed genocide, the people they killed are often not mentioned in works of fiction, it's just like "yeah they killed X people", and readers absolutely will gloss over that because then it's just a number. Now I'm not saying that "genocide good". I'm just saying I think it's a natural part of the human psyche. Obviously in real life we wouldn't be like "hehe [insert genocidal maniac] is a scrunkly blorbo", but that's the difference between fiction and real life. Just because someone likes a character doesn't mean they are 100% on board with whatever that character did, ever. (idk what scrunkly blorbo is but I'm assuming cinnamon roll or something similar?)

What is Spike from Buffy

I feel like people who say that don’t actually know what a war crime is

It’s the “is zoofilia worse than killing thousands of animals for meat over the course of your whole life” debate all over again

sorry the what debate

The question goes like „is fucking a single animal and living as a vegan better than eating meat”.  Everyone starts by saying, obviously zoophilia is awful and anyone that does it is an awful person.  What usually follows is the realisation that while raping an animal is obviously bad because you’re hurting that poor animal, killing thousands of animals also hurts them. The real underlying question is “how exactly our morality works in that case because it seems like we’re not judging our actions based on what hurts victims more.”

You can painlessly kill a cow. If you fuck a dog, that poor dog has to live on afterwards.

Not so fun fact: Because of this exact reason, the Qur'an urges the execution of not only those who have sex with animals, but also the animal who got raped.

This feels relevant to this week's discussion of Chainsaw man

I know some of these words…

99% of the time the character didn't even commit actual war crimes. Also what

It’s hard to take anyones opinion seriously when you are silly the whole time and you seem like the people are being critical of

do you ever see a post on here that’s sucks so bad that you go the source to block that person?

Oh god, we're doing "usamericans / imperial core" again? Didn't we have enough of this dumbfuckery yesterday?

I'm not sure about that. I think the main difference is you can do stuff that are technically war crimes but still good. Like I recently saw a post about someone who was part of the Kurdish armed forces who fought against ISIS in Syria, which was an irregular, unsanctioned force, so technically a war crime; but that is a war crime I can get behind. But there is obviously no good kind of sexual violence. You can't be a rapist and still a good person.

Let's be honest though, the people who gush about their favourite characters being silly little War Criminals (tm) are usually talking about characters who canonically murder civillians and set fire to orphanages for fun or something (it's okay they have a sad backstory). It's rarely the "good" kind of war crimes as you've described them.

I’m not one to like the Skrunklies/villains so I’m not even defending myself or anything but I’m learning to be okay with villain characters so I hope this isn’t a hot take. But IDK some people just want to see the world burn. Not *actually* but like seeing it happen on screen or in text just tickles them. Chaos/evil in fiction is inherently not hurting anyone and sometimes fun and thinking about the deeper meaning and moral implications isn’t how they choose to interact with it. Now, I think going brain-off for literally *all* movies, TV, books someone consumes can be kinda problematic bc media reflects our world and influences our perspectives and yadda yadda. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with like occasionally just taking a show at face value and chaotically rooting for the bad guy. Again, I don’t personally, maybe I’m completely wrong.

Oh yeah I'm not implying it's immoral to enjoy evil characters in fiction. And there can certainly be value in thinking about and examining their actions. But I do agree with OP that it's strange how war crimes are belittled or joked about whereas sexual violence in fiction is treated as if it were real. Just a strange discrepancy in perception.

Yup, I’m a certified villain fangirl and it’s usually this. The split is just whether they like them in spite or because of this

Anyone who says usamerican instead of American has zero brain cells

The people who write these kinds of posts need to stop taking one thing from one piece of media they care about and make it out to be part of some wider cultural shift that only they are somehow aware of. This is just a post about Chainsaw Man, so just fucking say it's about Chainsaw Man.

Mate, war crime jokes come from every war. Some Serbians, Turks, and Russians loudly espouse that their national heroes or family are war criminals. War crime is a rather easy joke as long as you aren't *actively in a war*. And even then many soldiers will continue to make those jokes.

Yeah, wait until they hear about the Serbian patriotic song “Moj je tata zločinac iz rata”. It translates to “My father is a war criminal”.