Search Results
7/6/2025, 8:40:31 PM
>>280307128
>>280304548
>Doesn't mean it elevates the story simply because it's in line with the theme of child exploitation, and frankly, it isn't. It's like a movie about the horrors of war occasionally trying to make killing really, really cool. It fucks with the theme.
This is the first mention of that theme ITT and it is specifically (You) presenting it as though it were a refutation-in advance-of the oft-cited "oh he's not indulging in it, it's to show that child exploitation is bad" line of argument. When I said I wasn't even saying that and that the elements you find distasteful served storytelling purposes apart from that,
>>280305131
You responded with "whether or not you're going with that specufic argument" and then ran a script anyway.
That is strawmanning. You find "the lolisho is okay because it speaks to the themes of child exploitation" to be more assailable than what I'm saying, you anticipated me taking that position on my behalf, and you want to argue with the guy who would take that position rather than arguing with me. Otherwise we need to "course-correct." Isn't a fucking railroad, bro, and I'm not getting railroaded.
You're not course-correcting anything with your insistence that I focus on the theme of child exploitation. Shout it into the void. Sometimes a person will respond to you in conversation with rhetoric outside the scope of what you had anticipated, or by bringing up things that hadn't occurred to you. Sometimes the conversation doesn't even go the way you wanted. That doesn't mean it went off-course when the little movie you had playing in your head diverges from reality.
Saying that the horny or distasteful elements of Made In Abyss speak to storytelling elements apart from child exploitation and that they inform the aesthetic and thematic presentation of the work as a whole is a direct refutation of the notion that such elements "hamstring" the story by standing in contradiction to a theme of child exploitation.
>>280304548
>Doesn't mean it elevates the story simply because it's in line with the theme of child exploitation, and frankly, it isn't. It's like a movie about the horrors of war occasionally trying to make killing really, really cool. It fucks with the theme.
This is the first mention of that theme ITT and it is specifically (You) presenting it as though it were a refutation-in advance-of the oft-cited "oh he's not indulging in it, it's to show that child exploitation is bad" line of argument. When I said I wasn't even saying that and that the elements you find distasteful served storytelling purposes apart from that,
>>280305131
You responded with "whether or not you're going with that specufic argument" and then ran a script anyway.
That is strawmanning. You find "the lolisho is okay because it speaks to the themes of child exploitation" to be more assailable than what I'm saying, you anticipated me taking that position on my behalf, and you want to argue with the guy who would take that position rather than arguing with me. Otherwise we need to "course-correct." Isn't a fucking railroad, bro, and I'm not getting railroaded.
You're not course-correcting anything with your insistence that I focus on the theme of child exploitation. Shout it into the void. Sometimes a person will respond to you in conversation with rhetoric outside the scope of what you had anticipated, or by bringing up things that hadn't occurred to you. Sometimes the conversation doesn't even go the way you wanted. That doesn't mean it went off-course when the little movie you had playing in your head diverges from reality.
Saying that the horny or distasteful elements of Made In Abyss speak to storytelling elements apart from child exploitation and that they inform the aesthetic and thematic presentation of the work as a whole is a direct refutation of the notion that such elements "hamstring" the story by standing in contradiction to a theme of child exploitation.
Page 1