I think this would work better if Rescue at Midnight Castle had been the ‘86 movie, but it was just a special.
 
Ah, if ONLY it would’ve been the ’86 movie.

@Angrybrony
 
@Nightmare Fuel
 
how come i’ve had that tag for like a year and you’re the first two people to acknowledge it?

@NLTLF  
for once, you are in the right

@NLTLF  
well your thing says your always in the wrong. so you must be wrong.

@Angrybrony
 
explain

@NLTLF  
wrong.

y’all can say what you want, the 1984 version still isn’t as cliche and typical as the 2017 movie

virgin v chad memes have overstayed their welcome to be honest

@raakamagna  
Wish them the best for me.

@Bonklefan99  
No. A friend who was working on a research paper and had a sort of inner crisis on many topics regarding limits, rules, and society.

@raakamagna  
Who asked you, might I as? Another DB user?

@Bonklefan99  
Someone else asked me the same thing yesterday. I am still trying to figure out the answer.

@raakamagna  
Good point, but there will always be some who will have the truth in front of them and not believe it. Exposing lies rather than suppressing them does seem to be a good strategy to deal with the problem rather than kick it down the road, but like any plan it is not foolproof. You can have the biggest mountain of data behind your statement and some ignorant sod will not be convinced. How, then, to deal with the people who will not listen?

This reminds me of the famous Metal Gear speech that has grown in popularity in the recent years. Both sides agree on the importance of truth, but one tries to make sure noise is filtered while the other believes truth will surface on itself. In the end both are right, but both are flawed.  
I agree that filtering lies is important. That is true. I suppose a way to avoid outright censorship would be exposing them as lies instead of just shutting them up. Mostly because I fear if silenced, those who speak lies won’t change their ways, but instead go to a place where they can spread them until they are stronger.  
It is a different approach and personality, but I sense our end goal is the same. Basically not being stuck in lies or things that contradict our own individual nature.

@Cryosite  
What do you suggest then? I can’t accept that collaboration and conflict are both products of social interaction. If this inability to reconcile the contradictory truths of the world, to be unable to take the good with the bad, is a flaw in myself, I cannot correct it, and anyone who is professionally qualified to help me, I. E. a psychotherapist, I have an inherent dislike of because their whole job is to, directly or indirectly, tell me what I should do. I have cut off contact with my current therapist due to my inability to reconcile their job and my personality. I know that this is probably a bad move on my part, but I am just too stubborn to accept their help.

@Bonklefan99  
Find a way to accurately separate opinion from fact and your method would be palatable, though not as ideal in my mind as it appears in yours.
 
The sharing of untested ideas is valuable. Person A may have an unfounded opinion that inspires person B to discover a fact. Your placing value in quieting this process is historically a bad one. Not merely due to the echo chamber effect.
 
You seem to be of the mindset that every person operates alone, and only breaks their silence after making a discovery they have thoroughly experimented upon. You dismiss collaboration and brainstorming.
 
There is also art that has value alongside factual matters. You acknowledge enjoyment of beauty which inherently cannot withstand the truth demands of proof.
 
I do understand the desire to reduce the noise in the world. I return to my opening statement though: figure out a way to identify useless noise without listening to it and you can more freely silence it. I don’t think this is possible, therefore I oppose censorship.

@raakamagna  
Once again, thank you for acknowledging my POV without taking a reactionary stance. As far as I see it, among their many other evils, the censors of the past were always biased in their actions; they selectively blocked opinions contrary to their own and allowed those in their favor to exist. The difference between me and them is that I believe that if you have to censor, censor all opinions, not just those you don’t like.
 
If truth is to prevail, then it has to stand on its own merit. If it cannot, it’s not like with people, who can improve what they can about themselves; truth is an inanimate concept that is what it is. With people, the burden of responsibility is on them and their actions ; with truth, the mantle falls on us to ensure its triumph. The marketplace of ideas is a nice concept, but I fear it would lead to a bunch of smooth talkers swaying a gullible public to their causes. Sound familiar?
 
I guess my main objection to your belief is the word “eventually.” I am not a patient person, and the longer it takes for truth to prevail, the more the world will suffer for it. I know that my methods may be mad, but as I said in one of my fanfics, “At least we have souls. At least we can regret what we must do.”

@Bonklefan99  
We seem to disagree strongly on a few key points, but the way you expose your views prove they make sense and are based on something beyond mere ideology. I do agree truth should be the true rule of law, but of course I oppose censorship, basing my belief on the notion that truth and facts eventually overcome all obstacles.
 
I find your stance fascinating since it prioritizes truth and facts beyond mere ethical principles. I would like to know more and see a potential improvement of my own views through that.

@Cryosite  
I guess the problem is that the perceived imbalance is so great that emotion clouds these people’s judgement and instead of justice, they seek revenge. No matter if the imbalance was as great as they make it out to be, they want to take their pound of flesh, sometimes literally. There’s an interesting comment about the different ways that “special” has been defined; that is, as “exceptional” versus “inherently deserving of basic respect.” People like you, as I understand, would agree with this statement from Ratatouille: “Not anyone can cook. But a great cook can come from anywhere.”
 
In other words, everyone is good at something, but no one can become great at anything by pure effort and will (“magic feather syndrome.”) However, that focus on pre-existing talent you promote, while noble, should only extend so far as to leave others out of the circle of responsibility for one’s fate. If you stop considering other people altogether, as in “I know I’m a good salesperson, so I’ll use unethical methods to drive everyone else out of my market niche,” congratulations, you’ve started on the path to becoming an egomaniac.
 
Also, I am not someone who can reconcile the good with the bad. For example, some fandoms I am interested in are currently quite conflicted over their franchises’ new (mis)management, to the point of one Youtuber making a 180 and supporting everything the new owner does and his audience attacking him, not just for his repression of dissenting opinions on his videos’ comments, but also implying that his relationship with his girlfriend is unhealthy. Straw man or what? However, I am also fascinated with the factual history of this franchise, specifically the design and production for its screen props. How can I accept that the same franchise that made arguably terrible business decisions and spawned horrible fanatics created artful masterpieces of prop design?
 
Back to the issue of equ(al)ity. I do agree that good feminists seek not to devalue their enemies, but to rise above them, and even then without a superiority complex. However, I cannot accept that the human race produces both perfectly reasonable people like you and raakamagna and the mindless idiots you find in every ideology, left or right. If I were in charge, I would make all opinions, whether they be in my favor or not, conservative or liberal, forbidden. The slogan would go, “If you say something you can’t prove, you’re asking for trouble.” For example, even my biggest fans in this hypothetical regime would attract dissidents, some of whom would inevitably be violent. Ditto for my enemies. If you can’t back it up, keep it to yourself. Facts only in my world. Alas, some, likely people such as you two, would see this as an affront to free speech. They do not believe in the converse of the old Franklin saying: “Those who sacrifice safety for liberty deserve neither.” As long as those people have power, ideas like mine will not have a chance.
 
Given my radical ideas, my strategy is limited to being better than the SJWs: as far as I can tell the main criticism against them is that they’re unwilling to actually do something at best and rabid, hair-trigger bullies at worst. To quote a wise man, “Oh no, I’m not brave enough for politics.” Ignorance is bliss, and my only option given I cannot reconcile good and evil is to not acknowledge either. I must drown myself in my work, hobbies, and pleasures; given the choice between “staying woke” and staying sane, I’d rather not lose my most valuable gift, my mind.

@redweasel  
Indeed. I fear words nowadays lose value because they are used without much thought. It scares me. Feels like newspeak.

@Cutealoo
 
the word you’re thinking of is “misogynist” not incel. misogynism has been a well known term for decades, and is the word you should use. incel is just a weasel word to persecute single men by making people think they’re all misogynists. and it’s spread by both women and men.

@Коновал  
Interesting, but not quite the same as what I was opposed to.
 
A legalized prostitution industry that is independent/private like any other business, and disabled folks receiving a bit of money for the purpose of buying that affection is fine. If it is working in Holland, then exploring how to make it work elsewhere seems worthy and positive.
 
That said, I’d imagine the employees of this industry can refuse to serve customers if they wish. Where I start objecting is the notion I’ve heard said in which women would be forced by law to serve. That it would be a government-run institution. That incels would receive government mandated sex.
 
Ideas like what you link may sound similar on certain details, but differ on important ones. I’ve seen people advocate the latter, and I should have been more clear that is what I objected to, not things like what you linked.

@Cryosite
 
http://s30246402118.mirtesen.ru/blog/43245165307/V-Gollandii-est-sotsialnyie-prostitutki.

>Incel-like Villains
 
That would explain why /mlp/ likes Fizzlepop Berrytwist (or whatever her name is)…

@raakamagna  
A fascinating conversation, however you generalize the Left.
 
“The Left” is a very diverse group and the group that you talk about specifically would be in the Left Authoritarian with a dash of Right wing in terms of their aversion to Men.
 
I find groups like these to be very hypocritical as well and they do more harm for their group instead of good.
 
In my opinion, whatever happened to just being a decent person and adapting and improving your personality so that you can better get along with a person?
 
So many people want to be toxic, static characters when this isn’t how our psyche is like. We’re supposed to adapt and constantly improve ourselves, Humanity wouldn’t have gotten to where it was without that. Constantly adapting society, technology and physiology.
 
Why can’t the rest of us learn that our minds need to adapt and improve as well? We’re a dynamic species, physically and mentally, going against that will spell our doom. I’m making sure to teach these lessons to my neice and my future children.