Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

Okay, my understanding was that you were arguing he wasn't going to participate in pointless violence that has no reason to exist like the giants.

Since you are, I refer you to my original comment on it, which kicked off this whole debate: The giants and now Usopp is a fucked up perspective on virtue and honor and it should be acknowledged as such.

Again, you're looking at another world through the lens of our own. You aren't taking that world as it's own thing. Stuff like this needs to be taken in context, you're taking it out of the context of the story and pretending it's in a completely different context. Part of understanding a piece of writing is being able to take it as it's own thing, you, as always, are going way too specific on a thing and lifting it out of it's original context and then complaining that it makes no sense.

No, not duels. I'm okay with duels as a concept. But this particular example is stupid in it's absurdity and disgusting in it's glorification by the character. It is a duel where the original point of the duel has been forgotten. A duel over which the original point, when revealed, was revealed to be trivial and an idiotic thing to start a fight over (who caught the bigger animal). Duels that last so long that they consume a third of men's lives. Duels where the people's lives aren't consumed ONLY by that duel and nothing else.

I have no issues with fighting for a principle or something, but lets be clear: the giants were not fighting over a principle. They just loved fighting. They worshipped fighting. It was an indulgence, and they abandoned the rest of their lives to do it. They loved it.

The concept of duels in general might reasonably be considered iffy, but this goes way, WAY beyond any other duel concept I've ever seen. And glorifying this particular iteration that is so utterly pointless that removes you from the world for the sake of the most petty perception of honor I've ever seen is what it is: fucked up.

And again, I'm fine with Usopp doing this as a character. I just wish the writing would acknowledge how disgusting it is.

So you're looking at it through your own morality, ignoring the original context, and complaining that it doesn't ascribe to your world view. I don't know what to tell you other than to take a class in critical theory.

 

[Veelk]

Again, you're looking at another world through the lens of our own. You aren't taking that world as it's own thing. Stuff like this needs to be taken in context, you're taking it out of the context of the story and pretending it's in a completely different context. Part of understanding a piece of writing is being able to take it as it's own thing, you, as always, are going way too specific on a thing and lifting it out of it's original context and then complaining that it makes no sense.

What, exactly, am I taking out of context? I've acknowledged every piece of this exchange I can see, and I am still coming to the conclusion that it's an incredibly fucked up depiction of warrior ethics where violence is celebrated as the best answer to the most pointless of conflicts imaginable. What is the context you think I'm missing that would make this okay?

It's not that it doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense. People have fought and killed over things just as trivial as this. What I don't see why this is a thing we should celebrate.

So you're looking at it through your own morality, ignoring the original context, and complaining that it doesn't ascribe to your world view. I don't know what to tell you other than to take a class in critical theory.

I could give you the same advice, because what your doing right now is specifically promoting a lack of critical thinking in examining this. "Just take it as it's own thing, without questioning it" which has unfortunately become the typical OP response to criticism.

Anyway, look, I've repeatedly said I understand it makes sense in the world. But that doens't magically change the fact that it's a messed up philosophy.

You know, the whole "rape, pillage and burn" thing in medieval stories comes from the fact that in medieval times, raping women of towns they sacked was considered a soldier's right. After all, he's fighting the good fight, why shouldn't he get to enjoy the spoils? I can understand that that is the medieval soldier's mentality, and I've read plenty of dark fantasy that depicted just that. That doesn't make it any less fucked up a mindset to have, even though it's perfectly accurate to both the fiction I was reading and the time period it's based on. It was wrong now, and it was wrong then even if they didn't think it was.

And this perception of fighting being glorified over stupid shit is fucked up, regardless of the context of the OP.

 

[B-Dubs]

What, exactly, am I taking out of context? I've acknowledged every piece of this exchange I can see, and I am still coming to the conclusion that it's an incredibly fucked up depiction of warrior ethics where violence is celebrated as the best answer to the most pointless of conflicts imaginable. What is the context you think I'm missing that would make this okay?

It's not that it doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense. People have fought and killed over things just as trivial as this. What I don't see why this is a thing we should celebrate.

You're taking out of the context of the morality of that world and approaching it with the morality of ours. That's a world where people who want to chase their dreams go off and become pirates, that's not our world. In that world honor and pride are huge things. To us it's a dumb as fuck argument but to them it's all about their honor and pride and in that world honor and pride are huge things. It's worth dying for to them.

The story does admit, to the reader, that the reason they're fighting is dumb, and that their silly fight essentially saves the world from the giant pirate crew. The story gives us a little nudge at the end and lets us draw the conclusion on our own, not everything needs to be handed to the reader. This is something that everyone sort of figured out on their own.

Usopp, on the other hand, just wants to be an honorable warrior and sees these two guys who hold their honor in such high regard that neither are willing to tarnish it. To him it doesn't matter how the fight started, only that he wants to be an honorable warrior like them someday. He just wants to be the sort of guy people look up to and say, "Hey, that guy is a great warrior of the seas and we gotta respect him." He wants honor and respect and he sees these two guys who aren't willing on compromise their honor and admires that. It's not a complicated story.

 

[Tathanen]

Usopp's endorsement aside, it's a warrior giant culture, it's hard to just kind of handwave violence as if it's not a central pillar of their society. It's not about "why are we still dueling," it's that their society glorifies the battle fundamentally, and to abandon the duel for any reason would be enough of a disgrace to eject them from their valhalla. Contextually it's not particularly gross to me. Different fictional fighting giant culture, different priorities and value systems.

They aren't even fighting to the death, it's a sporting match. The brutality being suggested here isn't really present.

 

[Veelk]

You're taking out of the context of the morality of that world and approaching it with the morality of ours. That's a world where people who want to chase their dreams go off and become pirates, that's not our world. In that world honor and pride are huge things. To us it's a dumb as fuck argument but to them it's all about their honor and pride and in that world honor and pride are huge things. It's worth dying for to them.

See above. All that isn't lost on me. I understand why they do it. What your promoting here is moral relativity, but that's always been a weak argument.

If you wanted to, you could say the same about anyone. Charles Manson isn't fucked up, we're just taking his actions out context of the morality of his character and applying our own standards. His world is a world where he takes pleasure in killing and he sees no reason not to do it. To us, it's very vile, but to him it's all good fun, and worth going to jail for.

So no, don't tell me I don't understand or am taking things out of context, because I'm not. I understand the argument it's making, it's context. And it's fucked up. Within the context of OP, it's fucked up.

Usopp's endorsement aside, it's a warrior giant culture, it's hard to just kind of handwave violence as if it's not a central pillar of their society. It's not about "why are we still dueling," it's that their society glorifies the battle fundamentally, and to abandon the duel for any reason would be enough of a disgrace to eject them from their valhalla. Contextually it's not particularly gross to me. Different fictional fighting giant culture, different priorities and value systems.

They aren't even fighting to the death, it's a sporting match. The brutality being suggested here isn't really present.

Again, moral relativity, even of the cultural type, is a very weak argument to make. Taken to it's logical end, you realize you can't say anyone every did anything wrong, however vile.

That said, OP's lack of accurate depiction of violence is it's only saving grace, sort of. The fact that they're not seriously injuring each other is helpful. Though they would, and the only reason that the giant who lost survived was because the weapons were dulled by hundred years of war. It's implied that he would have killed him if it had been sharp. Iirc, he was even surprised that he survived. So, again, the guy would have killed his friend over a pointless fight whose cause they've forgotten.

Fucked up.

 

[B-Dubs]

See above. All that isn't lost on me. I understand why they do it. What your promoting here is moral relativity, but that's always been a weak argument.

If you wanted to, you could say the same about anyone. Charles Manson isn't fucked up, we're just taking his actions out context of the morality of his character and applying our own standards. His world is a world where he takes pleasure in killing and he sees no reason not to do it. To us, it's very vile, but to him it's all good fun, and worth going to jail for.

So no, don't tell me I don't understand or am taking things out of context, because I'm not. I understand the argument it's making, it's context. And it's fucked up. Within the context of OP, it's fucked up.

You didn't understand a single thing I wrote, if you did then you wouldn't have used the example you did. You're talking about the morality of an individual, I'm talking about an entire story. The two things are worlds apart. You're taking something out of the context of a story and put it into a context it wasn't meant to be in. There's a huge difference between doing that and what you just did with your analogy.

 

[Veelk]

You didn't understand a single thing I wrote, if you did then you wouldn't have used the example you did. You're talking about the morality of an individual, I'm talking about an entire story. The two things are worlds apart. You're taking something out of the context of a story and put it into a context it wasn't meant to be in. There's a huge difference between doing that and what you just did with your analogy.

I don't agree. Cultural relativity is the natural extension of moral relativity, and we're discussing a theoretical culture here. People always try to make a big fuss about how there's some major difference between fiction and reality, but we're all just stories in the end. Comparing it to a real man is perfectly valid. But fine, I'll play your game and adjust accordingly.

Lets say that there is a fictional culture that is based on the crimes of Charles manson then, where society murders each other based on the cultural belief that killing people is good fun. Lets say this culture exists in OP even, as a fanfic or whatever.

Is that all it takes for the murder to go from 'heinous act' to 'oh, it's just those foreign people, they do things weird there'?

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't agree. Cultural relativity is the natural extension of moral relativity, and we're discussing a theoretical culture here. People always try to make a big fuss about how there's some major difference between fiction and reality, but we're all just stories in the end. Comparing it to a real man is perfectly valid. But fine, I'll play your game and adjust accordingly.

Lets say that there is a fictional culture that is based on the crimes of Charles manson then, where society murders each other based on the cultural belief that killing people is good fun.

Is that all it takes for the murder to go from 'heinous act' to 'oh, it's just those people from the other country, they do things weird there'?

You need to take a class on critical theory if you want to play this game. You don't understand the arguments being made here at all if you think this is what's going on. Instead of arguing the point, which you have long since lost, you've created a completely different scenario to argue instead of the one being argued.

 

[Veelk]

You need to take a class on critical theory if you want to play this game. You don't understand the arguments being made here at all if you think this is what's going on.

Well, we can play the "you don't understand", "no YOU don't understand" game all day long, so lets just end with mutual assurance of the others ignorance then.

But I've personally never met a person who went "Oh, yeah, the Dothraki are cool, and they're totally normal people for institutionalizing rape and slavery as part of their culture" or "there's nothing wrong with orcs just because they're seemingly inherently murderous". Nothing is being taken out of context here. I've listen and heard the reasoning for why the giants believe what they believe and do what they do, and I maintain that it is messed up. I don't have to buy into the culture to understand it. I understand their emphasis on personal pride, and I still consider the fact that personal pride is so tantamount that it is considered tarnished if you don't fight to the death for every minor squabble you have is not a healthy mentality for any culture to have.

Take a critical theory class and learn that criticism doesn't mean you blankly accept whatever the author throws at you. What it means is that you explore it what the author presents, however much you may disagree with it. But exploration doesn't rob you of your ability to approve or disapprove of anything. It's not 'taking things out of context' to look at the giants cultural norms and still find them despicable.

 

[B-Dubs]

Well, we can play the "you don't understand", "no YOU don't understand" game all day long, so lets just end with mutual assurance of the others ignorance then.

But I've personally never met a person who went "Oh, yeah, the Dothraki are cool, and they're totally normal people for institutionalizing rape and slavery as part of their culture" or "there's nothing wrong with orcs just because they're seemingly inherently murderous". Nothing is being taken out of context here. I've listen and heard the reasoning for why the giants believe what they believe and do what they do, and I maintain that it is messed up. The fact that personal pride is so tantamount that it is considered tarnished if you don't fight to the death for every minor squabble you have is not a healthy mentality for any culture to have.

You've constructed a straw man. Instead of arguing the earlier point, you went with Manson.

The story itself already gives us a wink and a nudge that it's messed up, you have to meet the writer half way sometimes dude. Not everything is spelled out or has to be spelled out.

Take a critical theory class and learn that criticism doesn't mean you blankly accept whatever the author throws at you. What it means is that you explore it what the author presents, however much you may disagree with it. But exploration doesn't rob you of your ability to approve or disapprove of anything. It's not 'taking things out of context' to look at the giants cultural norms and still find them despicable.

I never said it was. Again, this is a straw man. I pointed out, quite a few times, that it is messed up and the writer points this out to the reader at the end of the arc. You just have to meet him half way, which you are never willing to do. I was pointing out how Usopp views them, which is an entirely different thing. You weren't arguing this, you were arguing that Usopp should agree with your world view.

 

[Nocebo]

I'm looking forward to seeing more from the revolutionary army and black beard also. It would be nice if their situation doesn't happen mostly in the background. I will be very surprised if we see Dragon in a real fight any time soon though.

 

[Tathanen]

Again, moral relativity, even of the cultural type, is a very weak argument to make. Taken to it's logical end, you realize you can't say anyone every did anything wrong, however vile.

Okay, but you're basically arguing moral objectivity, which is even more absurd. Either that or you're just trying to place real world thought patterns into a fictional work and expect them to overwrite the established in-universe reasoning. Which is the diametric opposite of what you were arguing earlier in this thread.

I'm not even sure what your point is now actually, because within the universe there are already differing opinions. For the giants it's a cultural norm, Usopp aspires to it, Luffy respects it, Nami thinks its stupid.

If you're just saying that you personally think it's fucked up, well, "okay." Conversation over I guess? Opinion registered? It can't be objectively fucked up, so there's no real debate to be had. Unless this is the "stories mustn't put socially irresponsible thoughts into the minds of their readers" argument again and boy I'm just gonna go to bed before that kicks off.

 

[Veelk]

You've constructed a straw man. Instead of arguing the earlier point, you went with Manson.

The story itself already gives us a wink and a nudge that it's messed up, you have to meet the writer half way sometimes dude. Not everything is spelled out or has to be spelled out.

Well, as of this point, Usopp openly glorified it, and nami was the only one who cricitized it and she was pretty much handwaved away as "You don't understand the awesome of what their HONOR!" by Usopp of all people. The only one who really criticized it was Saul. Nothing in the Little Garden Arc that I saw suggested anything but glorification to their code of honor. They acknowledged it was dumb, but it otherwise fought to defend that stupidity.

Anyway, you don't even seem to understand the point I made with manson. You were using moral relativity. Moral relativity, by nature, eliminates any and all universal ethical codes, which means that even Charles Manson can be considered a good person by them, or atleast not a bad person, so it's a weak argument. Yeah, you can use cultural relativity to absolve the giants of anything, but that can be applied to anything and anyone, so it doesn't mean much.

I never said it was. Again, this is a straw man. I pointed out, quite a few times, that it is messed up and the writer points this out to the reader at the end of the arc. You just have to meet him half way, which you are never willing to do. I was pointing out how Usopp views them, which is an entirely different thing. You weren't arguing this, you were arguing that Usopp should agree with your world view.

Pfft. Now whose the straw man.

And again, I'm fine with Usopp doing this as a character. I just wish the writing would acknowledge how disgusting it is.

I acknowledged a while ago that I don't care about Usopp glorifying it as his own personal character development, but the writing shouldn't, which can be done in many different ways without any particular character literally saying "Yo, this is fucked up."

You seem to suggest that the writing has done this, but I just read the arc and I didn't see where, and you didn't mention any part in particular.

Okay, but you're basically arguing moral objectivity, which is even more absurd. Either that or you're just trying to place real world thought patterns into a fictional work and expect them to overwrite the established in-universe reasoning. Which is the diametric opposite of what you were arguing earlier in this thread.

I'm not even sure what your point is now actually, because within the universe there are already differing opinions. For the giants it's a cultural norm, Usopp aspires to it, Luffy respects it, Nami thinks its stupid.

If you're just saying that you personally think it's fucked up, well, "okay." Conversation over I guess? Opinion registered? It can't be objectively fucked up, so there's no real debate to be had. Unless this is the "stories mustn't put socially irresponsible thoughts into the minds of their readers" argument again and boy I'm just gonna go to bed before that kicks off.

I'd like to see a good argument for why it isn't fucked up, is what I'm saying. Saying "Oh, god dictates we do it" is weak and hollow. Fully developed cultures have many justifications and history that explains why things are done the way they done.

I really don't know how anyone can say that I am trying to make stories socially responsible after all the times I discussed how my desire is to have a more believable story only about a billion times now, and that includes taking a deeper, more complex look at why things are and what affects they have. So when I say "This is fucked up", I want to see realistic consequences of what the two giants going off and fucking around would be. For example, just shooting it out there, maybe a story where Dorry and Broggy finally coming back to Elbaf and tehy're told their sons and daughters were murdered 90 years ago, and their family now hates them for being fucking around for no reason for 100 years, and they have to wrestle with the idea that maybe fucking around for 100 years with his buddy maybe wasn't the best life choice he could have made, regardless of how much his god and pride and fighting boner dictated it. That alone would be enough.

 

[B-Dubs]

Well, as of this point, Usopp openly glorified it, and nami was the only one who cricitized it and she was pretty much handwaved away as "You don't understand the awesome of what their HONOR!" by Usopp of all people. The only one who really criticized it was Saul. Nothing in the Little Garden Arc that I saw suggested anything but glorification to their code of honor. They acknowledged it was dumb, but it otherwise fought to defend that stupidity.

Anyway, you don't even seem to understand the point I made with manson. You were using moral relativity. Moral relativity, by nature, eliminates any and all universal ethical codes, which means that even Charles Manson can be considered a good person by them, or atleast not a bad person, so it's a weak argument. Yeah, you can use cultural relativity to absolve the giants of anything, but that can be applied to anything and anyone, so it doesn't mean much.

I'm saying you constructed a straw man when you made the Manson argument, which you did.

Okay, but you're basically arguing moral objectivity, which is even more absurd. Either that or you're just trying to place real world thought patterns into a fictional work and expect them to overwrite the established in-universe reasoning. Which is the diametric opposite of what you were arguing earlier in this thread.

I'm not even sure what your point is now actually, because within the universe there are already differing opinions. For the giants it's a cultural norm, Usopp aspires to it, Luffy respects it, Nami thinks its stupid.

If you're just saying that you personally think it's fucked up, well, "okay." Conversation over I guess? Opinion registered? It can't be objectively fucked up, so there's no real debate to be had. Unless this is the "stories mustn't put socially irresponsible thoughts into the minds of their readers" argument again and boy I'm just gonna go to bed before that kicks off.

If this is what he's arguing then he's going on ignore and never coming off.

 

[Nocebo]

Does anyone think awakened devil fruits will play a major part in the story of Zou? By the way can Chopper now control his giant form? I forgot.

 

[Nocebo]

I really don't know how anyone can say that I am trying to make stories socially responsible after all the times I discussed how my desire is to have a more believable story only about a billion times now, and that includes taking a deeper, more complex look at why things are and what affects they have.

If your "desire" is to have a more "believable" story then I'm sure we can recommend you some books for adults. I'm not sure what you're doing in a thread about a comic aimed at teenage boys with this desire for a "believable" story. Unless you're trolling. You're talking about how you wish the duck was a swan, and that it would be more beautiful as a swan.

Summarized:
1) You desire a more believable story.
2) One Piece will never become what you want it to become as it is aimed at children.
Therefore you're wasting your breath and the time of people who get roped into your borderline trolling.

 

[Veelk]

I'm saying you constructed a straw man when you made the Manson argument, which you did.

You were arguing cultural relativity, because Giants are a culture that value pride and consider it worth dying for. Essentially, you were arguing a different value system than our own makes my criticisms of it moot because I can't apply my moral standards to it. Cultural relativity, in other words.

I replied with moral relativity being a weak argument. Cultural relativity is in my eyes the natural extension of moral relativity, the same argument just expanded to a societal scale, but you still objected in saying that I used an individual to try to compare a societal issue. Which, FYI, would be a false equivalence fallacy, not a strawman fallacy. Strawman are when I misinterpret your argument. False equivalency is when I make a bad analogy, which is what you feel I have done. If you feel I misinterpreted your argument, restate it now, because I feel I got the gist of it, and still consider it wrong.

But even if the false equivalency fallacy was accurate, then I modified it to be a cultural relativity question. Hence my supposition of a culture of Charles Mansons. If your mention of cultural values being different makes it impervious to other moral judgements, then you would consequently have to argue that a Charles Manson culture could not be judged either. Now you can't say I'm comparing an individual to a culture. This seems like a legit comparison to me.

Edit: The Logical Extreme can also be used fallaciously, which is why I bring it out with caution, but I do think it applies here. If Cultural relativity would apply to the giants, than why not every other culture, even one as extreme as the one I depicted?

If your "desire" is to have a more "believable" story then I'm sure we can recommend you some books for adults. I'm not sure what you're doing in a thread about a comic aimed at teenage boys with this desire for a "believable" story. Unless you're trolling. You're talking about how you wish the duck was a swan, and that it would be more beautiful as a swan.

Again with the trolling accusations...

Explain something to me. What possible criticism can be made of anything that cannot be summed up as "It was like this, when I didn't want it to be like this and would have preferred that". Any criticism I've ever read has essentially boiled down "This isn't what I want it to be."

Edit: the whole childrens literature thing is bullshit too. I've read plenty of childrens lit that put plenty of effort into making itself believable

 

[Dugna]

Does anyone think awakened devil fruits will play a major part in the story of Zou? By the way can Chopper now control his giant form? I forgot.

Chopper still needs a rumble for now to awaken his full form, but he can control it for 3 mins.

 

[Nocebo]

Again with the trolling accusations...

Explain something to me. What possible criticism can be made of anything that cannot be summed up as "It was like this, when I didn't want it to be like this and would have preferred that". Any criticism I've ever read has essentially boiled down "This isn't what I want it to be."

You want something that is inherently unrealistic. It's about scope and degrees. People can level criticisms that make sense in the context of the story and the genre, that is not the same as what you usually do. I'm not sure why that is hard to grasp. But clearly you're unable to understand the difference because you keep doing whatever it is you're doing.
What you seemingly want is a completely different genre of comic, especially with this latest bit.

Have you been accused of trolling by others before? If so then maybe you should reflect on that for a bit.

Edit: the whole childrens literature thing is bullshit too. I've read plenty of childrens lit that put plenty of effort into making itself believable

Splitting hairs are we? This clearly is not one of those nor will it ever be.

 

[Veelk]

You want something that is inherently unrealistic. It's about scope and degrees. People can level criticisms that make sense in the context of the story and the genre, that is not the same as what you usually do. I'm not sure why that is hard to grasp. But clearly you don't you're unable to understand the difference because you keep doing whatever it is you're doing.
What you seemingly want is a completely different genre of comic, especially with this latest bit.

Have you been accused of trolling by others before? If so then maybe you should reflect on that for a bit.

I have, and concluded they're wrong. What I not is friendly, but that's long since stopped bothering me.

Anyway, I never said unrealistic. I said believable. That's the big difference. I LOVE fantasy, and I love it when writers create believable worlds through various means. The problem with One Piece as I see it isn't the devil fruits or existence of giants or or talking deer or cyborg men. It's that I don't consider the people in it to act anything like real people. The consequences, or justifications, for culture norms aren't explored in enough depth. A lot of argument has been made that it's coming once we get to Elbaf, but who knows when that will be.

Splitting hairs are we? This clearly is not one of those nor will it ever be.

No. All fiction is unreal, by it's inherent nature, however closely it tries to depict things accurate to real life. But even the most unrealistic thing can be made believable. They're very different concepts.

 

[Nightbird]

I think One Piece stopped being realistic when the Mc discovered that he was able to stretch his limbs like rubber.

 

[Nocebo]

No. All fiction is unreal, by it's inherent nature, however closely it tries to depict things accurate to real life. But even the most unrealistic thing can be made believable. They're very different concepts.

You don't understand what I'm saying about genres. You don't seem to know what a genre is. One Piece is in a genre that is not the genre you're looking for nor will it ever be. End of discussion. If you want to claim you do understand, please describe the genre of One Piece in detail.

 

[Veelk]

You don't understand what I'm saying about genres. You don't seem to know what a genre is. One Piece is in a genre that is not the genre you're looking for nor will it ever be. End of discussion.

So, to be clear, you're saying that OP exists in a genre that in incapable of making it's world believable, even though it's actually one of the few shonen that pays fairly extensive attention to worldbuilding in several other aspects?

Edit: Not to mention that stories are not really bound by genres anyway. Genres are a catalogue system bookstores use to help customers understand what book has certain elements. You could have any mix of genres you want. There's no genre police that's gonna kick Oda's door down. I don't know what makes you think that OP's genre prevents it from creating believable cultures, but I can assure you it's not the case that it has to be that way.

 

[Nocebo]

So, to be clear, you're saying that OP exists in a genre that in incapable of making it's world believable, even though it's actually one of the few shonen that pays fairly extensive attention to worldbuilding in several other aspects?

See this is where you confuse realistic with believable.

I have, and concluded they're wrong. What I not is friendly, but that's long since stopped bothering me.

Have you ever considered that maybe you're delusional?

 

[Veelk]

See this is where you confuse realistic with believable.

No, I don't.

Have you ever considered that maybe you're delusional?

Lol. So you accuse me of trolling, then respond with blatant insults. Okay, this is actually a good note to end on. Thanks. Good night everybody. Til next time.

 

[Chariot]

There's no genre police that's gonna kick Oda's door down.

There is, actually. Oda answers to his Jump editor. He couldn't randomly switch to Ito horror or yaoi. His job is to please the Jump target group primarily. So he is limited by that.

 

[NaughtyPrawn]

I never realized that a discussion about a pirate manga could get so, well, deep.

 

[RomanceDawn]

I never realized that a discussion about a pirate manga could get so, well, deep.

I've been debating One Piece for about 10 or 11 years now. This probably isn't even the deepest argument I've witnessed. I'm not referring at all to that other hot button topic either.

Veelk, go to Arlong Park. I'm sure you will find many more who will be fer your side and just as many again it. You always seem to have a lot to say and the traffic their for constant One Piece talk is great.

When I need to talk games this is the place to be with a little One Piece on the side. When I need to talk One Piece I go there with a little games on the side. It's interesting how people exclusive to either forum view the other as a place full of unruly Devils.

 

[Bandini]

Good morning, One Piece fans. Looks like no early chapter this week, so I'll see you all tomorrow on the fourth-best day of the week, Friday eve. Have a great day!

 

[Tathanen]

I'd like to see a good argument for why it isn't fucked up, is what I'm saying. Saying "Oh, god dictates we do it" is weak and hollow. Fully developed cultures have many justifications and history that explains why things are done the way they done.

I feel like this is just you being, as someone else put it, incapable of meeting the author halfway. The religious beliefs are established and explained, yet still you demand a historical dissertation on how their religion was formed. Let's say the cultural reasons exist, sure, but like with every religion on earth they're obscured by hundreds or thousands of years, and the topic of anthropological studies. How exactly do we just drop this info into a faith-based discussion? Especially in a universe based around the fundamental IDEA of a void history? The establishment of their culture and religion as-is is more than enough for the point in the story when the topic was broached.

I really don't know how anyone can say that I am trying to make stories socially responsible after all the times I discussed how my desire is to have a more believable story only about a billion times now, and that includes taking a deeper, more complex look at why things are and what affects they have.

Because when we talked about sexism you literally said that Oda had a responsibility to not include sexist themes without challenging them because when people read stories they are subconsciously affected by them and may carry their evil into the real world. You're not gonna revise history and get out of that one.

 

[Veelk]

I feel like this is just you being, as someone else put it, incapable of meeting the author halfway. The religious beliefs are established and explained, yet still you demand a historical dissertation on how their religion was formed. Let's say the cultural reasons exist, sure, but like with every religion on earth they're obscured by hundreds or thousands of years, and the topic of anthropological studies. How exactly do we just drop this info into a faith-based discussion? Especially in a universe based around the fundamental IDEA of a void history? The establishment of their culture and religion as-is is more than enough for the point in the story when the topic was broached.

This is a series that will halt all action to deliver a 50 page flashback. Oda can work something out.

If there are reasons for it all that are obscured, then explore that, the fact that the Giants are continuously following a creed whose origin and purpose has been lost. That'd be a really interesting take on it, actually. I don't see there being a wrong way to get in depth about it, but something in depth about it would be good.

Because when we talked about sexism you literally said that Oda had a responsibility to not include sexist themes without challenging them because when people read stories they are subconsciously affected by them and may carry their evil into the real world. You're not gonna revise history and get out of that one.

I'd love to see a quote of me 'literally' saying that then, because I seem to recall saying that Oda had no obligation to not write sexist material. I just think it is sort of a dick thing to do, but I never imposed any responsibility on it, or if I used that word, I didn't mean it beyond the sense of "don't be a dick" and made that abundantly clear during the censorship part of that debate. I mean, yeah, I made it clear that I don't think people should do it, but only in the same sense that I don't think people should smoke. They can if they choose to, it's just not a good thing to do by any perspective, and most smokers I've met agreed to that. And the other big part of my argument was that it hobbles his own story, since I posit that OP would actually be better as a story without the sexist trappings, which is my actual motivation for the debate. Not doing it would be a social good, but I've stated I just want a better story from OP too.

There is, actually. Oda answers to his Jump editor. He couldn't randomly switch to Ito horror or yaoi. His job is to please the Jump target group primarily. So he is limited by that.

I would say Oda has power to make some negotiations, but keep in mind that the context of that was saying that there is no genre he is a part of that demands he is a shallow storyteller. There are no genre police for that.

 

[Tathanen]

This is a series that will halt all action to deliver a 50 page flashback. Oda can work something out.

Sure, he COULD. But it would be absurd. Sometimes you don't need to waste words on things that just don't matter.

I'd love to see a quote of me 'literally' saying that then, because I seem to recall saying that Oda had no obligation to not write sexist material. I just think it is sort of a dick thing to do, but I never imposed any responsibility on it, or if I used that word, I didn't mean it beyond the sense of "don't be a dick" and made that abundantly clear during the censorship part of that debate. I mean, yeah, I made it clear that I don't think people should do it, but only in the same sense that I don't think people should smoke. They can if they choose to, it's just not a good thing to do by any perspective, and most smokers I've met agreed to that. And the other big part of my argument was that it hobbles his own story, since I posit that OP would actually be better as a story without the sexist trappings, which is my actual motivation for the debate. Not doing it would be a social good, but I've stated I just want a better story from OP too.

Well I didn't memorize the phrasing so by "literally" I suppose I'm dictating my solid impression of your sentiment, not the words. But here, let's quote the words:

Perpetuating stereotypes is bad because it affects society, and makes other people perpetuate sexism

The point is, in this instance you are ascribing goodness or badness to a story because of how you feel it affects people's actions or mentalities in the real world. I don't go in for these debates where you can say "something is bad" but then go on to say "but hey he doesn't have to change it." If you think it's bad you think it should be different. Otherwise "bad" is not the word you are looking for. It's a value judgement with no meaning beyond relative association to your own beliefs, and your beliefs are meaningless if they do not inspire you to think the world should be this or that way.

But this is not a discussion for a One Piece thread, and I'm pretty sure it's gonna be fundamentally deadlocked from the get-go, so I'm gonna hopefully leave it right there and move on.

 

[Veelk]

Well I didn't memorize the phrasing so by "literally" I suppose I'm dictating my solid impression of your sentiment, not the words. But here, let's quote the words:



The point is, in this instance you are ascribing goodness or badness to a story because of how you feel it affects people's actions or mentalities in the real world. I don't go in for these debates where you can say "something is bad" but then go on to say "but hey he doesn't have to change it." If you think it's bad you think it should be different. Otherwise "bad" is not the word you are looking for. It's a value judgement with no meaning beyond relative association to your own beliefs, and your beliefs are meaningless if they do not inspire you to think the world should be this or that way.

But this is not a discussion for a One Piece thread, and I'm pretty sure it's gonna be fundamentally deadlocked from the get-go, so I'm gonna hopefully leave it right there and move on.

Fair enough, but I can't leave this post unreplied to. Because you misrepresent my argument when you frame it as such, whether you 'go in for those debates' or not.

That just because I think something is bad does not mean I am imposing a change. There are plenty of things that are bad that I don't feel that ought to be imposed upon. To some extent, we need to be evil. And I am not of the opinion that humans can be some sort of perfect race if we stop doing this or start doing more of that, because the way I see it, fixing one problem tends to create another. If we imposed somehow that sexism should never be written and created some kind of system where people are forced to not do it, the problem of inhibiting free expression would be worse than the problem of sexist writing. But that doesn't mean we pretend that the alternative is perfectly good just because censorship would be worse. We acknowledge that it's bad too.

In the case of One Piece, yeah, sexism is bad, and I would certainly like Oda to change it, but he doesn't have to. Bad is precisely the word I am looking for when I see the argument, and I maintain that this is the sort of thing that simply comes with freedom of expression. We can criticize it, but we should't be able to change it, because everyone deserves freedom of expression, and that includes sexists and worse. So, I'm perfectly happy having my criticism be limited to just that: criticism. Calling out bad practices as I see them, but nothing beyond that. One Piece's sexism is bad and it does have the effect I describe, but I place more value on Oda's freedom to express that bad influence than the bad influence itself.

So yeah, I would say you fundamentally and perhaps deliberately misinterpretting my argument. This is also a bad thing that I don't think you should do, but you are free to do it. Even if I were to get a mod, I doubt they'd ban you for it, but even if they did, I don't care about this enough to try to have you banned or force you to alter your position. It's just enough for me to be able to make my comments, say my piece that you're not doing this right.

And that's my position in a nutshell. You're wrong and misrepresenting my argument is a bad thing, but I don't impose any sort of responsibility on you not to be wrong or misrepresent my argument. It's just a dick thing to do. If you choose to be a dick, that's your business.

 

[Tathanen]

I'm not sure what kind of conversations you're used to having where people deliberately try to misrepresent someone's argument. If I'm misrepresenting it it's because you've failed miserably at conveying it properly. I don't know why on earth I would be expected to pull "to some extent, we need to be evil" as some thought process you would have had. If you want me to know that, say it.

And while we're misrepresenting each other, I never said you were "imposing" change. I said you think it should change. Thinking someone has "a responsibility" to write their story in a different way is far removed from imposing/demanding/requiring that they make a change.

Thanks for suggesting that my misrepresentation was done antagonistically, though, and that actual moderation could even conceivably be appropriate in response to it. Suggesting that I have "chosen to be a dick," on the other hand, is just the kind of personal insult garbage that moderators are here to deal with.

 

[Veelk]

I'm not sure what kind of conversations you're used to having where people deliberately try to misrepresent someone's argument. If I'm misrepresenting it it's because you've failed miserably at conveying it properly. I don't know why on earth I would be expected to pull "to some extent, we need to be evil" as some thought process you would have had. If you want me to know that, say it.

And while we're misrepresenting each other, I never said you were "imposing" change. I said you think it should change. Thinking someone has "a responsibility" to write their story in a different way is far removed from imposing/demanding/requiring that they make a change.

Thanks for suggesting that my misrepresentation was done antagonistically, though, and that actual moderation could even conceivably be appropriate in response to it. Suggesting that I have "chosen to be a dick," on the other hand, is just the kind of personal insult garbage that moderators are here to deal with.

I said choose because I don't truly know if it's not deliberate anymore, because I feel I've made my position clear many, many times, but apparently, you feel you are incapable of misinterpretting something on your own. Clearly, it obviously can't possibly a failure on your part. Which, if it's true, then you haven't chosen to be a dick, and merely happened into misrepresenting my argument through other circumstances. If that's what you call an insult, I don't know what to tell ya. We all could have chosen to be dicks by taking certain actions, but us being dicks seems to hinge on taking them, not whether we could have. If you didn't deliberately misrepresent my argument and it is merely an accident, then it's not what I described as choosing to be a dick. It's being something else, but not a dick in this case.

Anyway, you seem to be operating by a different definition of responsibility than most people. Having a responsibility implies having an obligation. It's a duty or task that you are charged with doing for whatever reason. That makes it an imposition, either by yourself or society, because tasks you need to do don't exist in a void. Responsibility naturally comes from the idea to fulfill some sort of obligation. So if you're saying I think Oda has a responsibility to write a story by nature, then you're saying I am imposing a duty upon him that he does so. As I've stated, I don't think he has any responsibility to. It'd be healthier if he did, and it's a good thing to be healthy, but that doesn't imply an obligation.

 

[Tathanen]

Clearly, it obviously can't possibly a failure on your part.

Funny, this has been your modus operandi for this entire thread.

 

[Nocebo]

Funny, this has been your modus operandi for this entire thread.

I'm sure he has considered that it could be a failure on his part to communicate, but concluded that everyone else is always wrong.

 

[Russ T]

welp all right so how about that pirate weather

 

[Veelk]

Funny, this has been your modus operandi for this entire thread.

Funny, as it actually wasn't, having admitted to being wrong and adjusting my position when others have made strong points. Just the last debate, I acknowledged bjork's point multiple times as it makes sense for Usopp to be all for the glorification of the giants fighting since he's young and inexperienced. I acknowledged your point regarding the fly debate.

What your doing is different. You insist that you got my point, when I am clearly and plainly saying something else. I make my distinctions are clear as possible, but you insist I mean something else because you can't conceive of how I can strongly disapprove of something with reasons of why it's wrong without feeling the need to impose upon it, and then insist it's my fault for allowing you to misinterpret my argument. So you can pretend that I'm this jackass that can't give any ground, but you can't understand basic things I'm saying. Why would you know how I think through these posts then?

 

[Tathanen]

Funny, as it actually wasn't, having admitted to being wrong and adjusting my position when others have made strong points. Just the last debate, I acknowledged bjork's point multiple times as it makes sense for Usopp to be all for the glorification of the giants fighting since he's young and inexperienced. I acknowledged your point regarding the fly debate.

What your doing is different. You insist that you got my point, when I am clearly and plainly saying something else. I make my distinctions are clear as possible, but you insist I mean something else because you can't conceive of how I can strongly disapprove of something with reasons of why it's wrong without feeling the need to impose upon it, and then insist it's my fault for allowing you to misinterpret my argument. So you can pretend that I'm this jackass that can't give any ground, but you can't understand basic things I'm saying. Why would you know how I think through these posts then?

You don't make anything clear until someone presses you on it. This has how it's been going this whole time. You bring up this "to some extent, we need to be evil" line as justification for why evil isn't something we should inherently want the opposite of, but give no indication whatsoever of this mindset ahead of time. You spend word after word after word to over-explain the points that don't need explaining, and skip over the actual parts that will make people understand you. I'm forced to insert things to fill the gaps, "he must think this, because of this," using what I feel to be normal cause and effect, but you always manage to come back with "no actually I think something completely different that I never brought up the first time, don't misrepresent me." People understand one another due to having shared baseline similarities, and you have shown that you are not particularly similar to anyone in here. Which is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's why everyone assumes the "wrong thing" apparently. You can't constantly be "misunderstood" by virtually everyone you talk to in a thread and fucking blame them. Every other post you make starts with something like "as I've made clear many times" but it should be obvious by now that you are the only one who thinks you are being clear. You are not being clear. I do not need more words from you, I need better words.

[Edit] God, I fucking HATE this! Why am I arguing with you! I don't give a shit about this, it is not my problem that you think this or that or anything, we aren't even talking about One Piece any more. Forget I said anything, you win, I'm wrong, I don't understand anything. I don't care, I want this to be over forever.

 

[IHaveIce]

Shit can we please get early spoilers so this can stop?

 

[Nocebo]

welp all right so how about that pirate weather

I think using terms like "eye of the hurricane" and stuff like that is offensive to pirates who have lost an eye.

 

[Veelk]

You don't make anything clear until someone presses you on it. This has how it's been going this wholeTime. You bring up this "to some extent, we need to be evil" line as justification for why evil isn't something we should inherently want the opposite of, but give no indication whatsoever of this mindset ahead of time. You spend word after word after word to over-explain the points that don't need explaining, and skip over the actual parts that will make people understand you. I'm forced to insert things to fill the gaps, "he must think this, because of this," using what I feel to be normal cause and effect, but you always manage to come back with "no actually I think something completely different that I never brought up the first time, don't misrepresent me." People understand one another due to having shared baseline similarities, and you have shown that you are not particularly similar to anyone in here. Which is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's why everyone assumes the "wrong thing" apparently. You can't constantly be "misunderstood" by virtually everyone you talk to in a thread and fucking blame them. Every other post you make starts with something like "as I've made clear many times" but it should be obvious by now that you are the only one who thinks you are being clear. You are not being clear. I do not need more words from you, I need better words.

Oh, please. When I say that "I've already explained this" and then go on to explain, I essentially repeat what I've said before the vast majority of the time. For instance, I explained way back in the censorship debate that I don't think there should be anything imposing on Oda's writing, and I can get some direct quotes to back that up, but here you are insisting that I said Oda has a responsibility of some kind. Now I've mentioned that perhaps you have a different definition of responsibility than most, but having looked up up, I see the only definition that applies to the context is " a duty or task that you are required or expected to do" or "something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc.", both of which fall under the catergory of 'imposition'.

The simple fact that you're trying to fill in 'gaps' of my logic on your own rather than asking me about those gaps yourself outright admits that you're tampering with the argument I make, which makes the cause of your misrepresentation of my arguments fairly clear now. Those are not your gaps to fill. If I say I don't like cats, you don't get to assume I like dogs, or I have a particular philosophy of what a pet should be. If I say Oda has no obligation to write the way I want him to write even though I consider it bad, that's not your cue to fill in why I must feel that way.

So no, I feel I make my writing pretty clear, and it's on you to actually read the words I write without obfuscating them with your own presumptions. If you have a confusion, you ask.

Shit can we please get early spoilers so this can stop?

Honestly...yeah, I want to as well. It's off topic anyway, and it's a meta discussion on rhetoric techniques. Not the place, and I'm as tired of tat as he is of me.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Shit can we please get early spoilers so this can stop?

The ninja will join the crew!!!


We need a pirate ninja alliance!

 

[IHaveIce]

The ninja will join the crew!!!


We need a pirate ninja alliance!

Was the name already revealed? I hope the Ninja is a cool dude... the samurai from Wano so far after Ryuma are kind of a let down

 

[NSESN]

The ninja will join the crew!!!


We need a pirate ninja alliance!

The ninja is blonde, wears orange clothes and has a fox as a pet

 

[Veelk]

He has the replication-replication fruit, allowing him to multiply himself, and also has wind powers for no adequately explained reason, and he's being sued for copyright infringement by Kasashi Mishimoto.

 

[BatDan]

Was the name already revealed? I hope the Ninja is a cool dude... the samurai from Wano so far after Ryuma are kind of a let down

Kanjuro already said his name is Raizo.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Sanji was supposed to be called Naruto because of his swirly brows but someone else beat him to publication.

 

[bjork]

So no, I feel I make my writing pretty clear, and it's on you to actually read the words I write without obfuscating them with your own presumptions. If you have a confusion, you ask.

Wow.

holy shit.