Untitled

[greatgardentree]

Do people realise it is 100% THEN overwrite. NOT overwrite as extraction happens??

The distinction is in what extraction is actually doing.

Extraction converts the host's biological data into an Otsutsuki compatible format while the host remains the same individual.

Think of writing the number 10 in binary. The representation changes, but the value is still 10.

Likewise, Boruto remains Boruto throughout extraction. His biological data is simply being rewritten into an Otsutsuki template.

Only after that conversion is complete does the overwrite become possible. That's when Momoshiki's identity would replace Boruto's.

So the extraction changes the format of the host's biological information. The overwrite changes who the host is.

[greatgardentree]

Dear Sasuke fanbase.

If you're conducting literary analysis, your arguments should be grounded in the source material NOT assumptions, headcanon, or personal preference. Every claim should be traceable to specific events, dialogue, or recurring patterns within the text. If you cannot point to where the work itself supports your interpretation, then you've made an assertion.

The burden of proof does not disappear simply because an interpretation sounds plausible. Plausibility is NOT evidence. If you claim a character has a particular motivation, possesses a certain trait, or that the author intended a specific message, then the text should demonstrate it. Otherwise, you're asking readers to accept your conclusion without showing WHY they should.

A sound interpretation is built from the text OUTWARD, not imposed onto the text from the outside. Conclusions should be the destination of analysis, not its starting point. Deciding on an interpretation first and then searching only for details that appear to support it is confirmation bias, not literary analysis. A convincing interpretation should explain the work as a whole, including the evidence that appears to challenge it.

Context is just as important as the evidence itself. A line of dialogue cannot be separated from who said it, why they said it, whether they were informed, truthful, emotional, sarcastic, or mistaken, and how later events reinforce or contradict their statement. Likewise, an isolated scene should not outweigh the cumulative weight of the narrative unless the work itself clearly establishes that it should. Literary evidence is not simply about collecting quotations; it is about representing those quotations accurately within the broader story.

Another common failure is moving the goalposts. When the text contradicts an interpretation, the appropriate response is to refine or abandon that interpretation. Instead, some readers introduce assumptions the story never establishes, speculate about unseen events, or invent missing context to preserve their conclusion. Every unsupported assumption becomes another claim that itself requires evidence. Interpretation should reduce uncertainty by explaining the text, not multiply it through speculation.

Consistency is equally important. The same evidentiary standard should apply to every claim regardless of which character, theme, or conclusion it supports. If explicit textual evidence is demanded for opposing arguments while speculation is accepted for preferred ones, then the discussion is no longer about understanding the work it is about defending a preconceived position.

None of this means every interpretation must be identical. Literature often allows for multiple reasonable readings. However, not every interpretation is equally well supported. Competing interpretations should be judged by how comprehensively they account for the source material, how well they withstand contradictory evidence, and how few unsupported assumptions they require.

So if someone asks you to support your interpretation with the text, that is not an unreasonable demand it is the foundation of literary analysis. And if your response is to block the person raising those questions rather than engage with the evidence, the source material remains exactly the same. Avoiding scrutiny does not strengthen an interpretation. It simply makes the echo chamber quieter.

[greatgardentree]

Why do people lie about Naruto in order to justify their hatred for his character???(Part2)

His "projection" onto Sasuke. This one is hilarious beacuse I don't need to actually do much because their fav(Sasuke) says it all:

I would like to slip in here and ask you to take note of this(Note):

Moving on:

Like bro what??

You just threatened his life(Note), told him you were not going to change and that his only options were to kill you or be killed by you. He is simply squaring up to you holding you at your word. Which Sasuke at the end agrees with.

The final fight is chefs kiss beacuse right out o the gate we have threats of violence again from Sasuke:

Naruto refusing to engage in violence:

But somehow Naruto is the monster here. Can you see how he is projecting hard into these villains?? No it is not Sasuke trying to force Naruto into the role Itachi forced him into and trying to kill him in that big brother's name. Nah it can't be. The second reason he gives is that Naruto is sexist and shows "misogynist behavior throughout the series" with proof of this being Naruto trying to kiss Sakura disguised as Sasuke, that's it. I'm not even going to entertain because even I'm getting bored trying to show you how disingenuous these people are. Moving on to the third reason "Naruto demonstrates manipulative behavior" the reason being "I spoke, and rather thoroughly I believe, about this on the first point of this very post, yet there’s no harm in having it into a separate space. As I’ve stated (therefore this specific point can’t be untied from his self-centered personality), Naruto constantly tries to have an emotional base to manipulate his enemies by telling them how tragic his background is in order to appeal to their emotions, draw a parallelism between his story and theirs, and then downgrading their subsequent decisions." We too have already went through this in Part 1 and the beginning of Part 2. Fourth reason "He’s another extremist believer in the will of fire and patriot of Konoha" this is the "explanation" "There’s no real reason for Naruto to be so blatantly loyal to the place and the system that ostracized him, discriminated him and forced him to live traumatic experiences other than the future retribution Konoha ends up offering (and because he played by its rules). Which is a lie because he already received the suppose "retribution" after the Pain arc and that still did not change anything but moving on: "He ends up putting the entire responsibility of everything that happened to him upon his shoulders and not in the WoF that convinced his father to transform his minutes-old-son into the vessel of a beast, a condition that was never told to him until a traitor spoke about it, a condition he was never trained for until much later -letting him to his own devices to control Kurama for twelve years (Naruto and Gaara circumstances are similar, his lack of knowledge on the bijuus inside them are similar, the only difference? The Seal’s quality!) " Yes the WoF released the Kyuubi that night. 😂😂😂😂😂. What the fuck is this man?? Fifth reason "He’s a hypocrite" reason "If we consider Boruto canon, and while it pains me to admit it, we should, then Naruto never fulfilled the promises he made throughout the series (the same vows he used to convince those around him not to fight against the system, the same commitments he pledged as to gain the recognition he craved). He didn’t eradicate the slave system that are carried out by the Hyüga clan, nor he forbid the use of human beings as vessels for the bijuus (a practice carried out first by Hashirama -his old reincarnation- to both use and imprison the beasts, amongst others." Which if you consider Boruto canon. The Hyuga slave system is stated and shown to have changed(abolished) in Boruto. Jinchuuriki sealing is not even present. Hell only jins present are Killer Bee(who Gyuki said he was returning to back in Naruto chapter 691-692) and Naruto(who Kurama accepted to stay inside of as the guardian of the meeting place again chapter 691-692).

[greatgardentree]

Why do people lie about Naruto in order to justify their hatred for his character???

This is rampant in the fanbase(everywhere actually). I will give you an example(https://leportraitducadavre.tumblr.com/post/170197668669) This is a link to a very "kind" person on Tumblr who was asked what were Naruto's major flaws and the response is baffling. First he says Naruto is self absorbed as a person(you can think that) but the reasons he gives are "We have various instances where Naruto directly compares other people’s traumatic events to his own (or of other person but that is similar to his own) with the sole purpose of downgrading its impact: With Neji, Naruto directly diminishes Neji’s experience with his father’s death and his enslavement in order to build a case for Hinata because her experiences were more similar to his (she was left aside by her father and degraded as a “good for nothing”, she’s more a parallel -although in a much more small scale- to Naruto than Neji is).  What he does is generate empathy by putting himself as the bigger victim of the system in order to downgrade the other’s statements; therefore, Neji had it rough, but who cares because he’s praised as a prodigy, while Hinata has her father alive and doesn’t possess a seal that can instantly kill her as Neji does, but she’s suffering as much as her cousin because she’s considered useless. " This is a lie. Naruto compares Neji's situation directly to his own once:

Doesn't diminish his suffering and goes to say what he thinks is wrong with Neji's conclusion which he focuses on to prove Neji's faux fatalism:

He brings up Hinata as someone "special" as in someone whose fate was not determined by birth as Neji stipulates:

And he is right. Hinata having been born in main family is not more talented than neji from the branch family. So if Neji the supposed believer of predestined fate is going through pain staking length to not only learn the main branches techniques but master them then by his own standards he is fighting against the very thing he "resigned" himself to.

So if Neji the supposed believer of predestined fate is postulating that it cannot be changed why not bring up the hypocrisy??

And the supposed pro-Neji side will say "oh it is an exam" then you have already lost. Neji says destiny supercedes everything, exams shouldn't be of any concern what neji should have done according to this person and the "Neji was right" crowd is give Hinata the win.

Naruto reiterates about not understanding the tragic "destiny" of the Hyuga clan and tells Neji if he thinks it is inescapable then fine he should do nothing and stop fighting it(pointing out his hypocrisy).

Then the kind Tumblright says "The exact same happen with characters like Nagato and Sasuke, whose traumas he diminishes because he also was wronged by the system, but because he considers his lack of revolutionaire response the only logical response (something he’s praised and, finally, acknowledged for -by the same people that sustain the system that wronged him in the first place), everything else is just “too much”, “too violent”. " Let's look at Naruto supposed diminishing of Nagato's struggles shall we. It is kind of funny because while going to "find" evidence(reading the manga actually) to debunk this claim I came across this beautiful moment in chapter 444.:

Let's now look at Nagato's and Naruto's actual conversation. First thing said by either side. Naruto has not said a thing yet and already one side is already hurling if you do as we have done you are just like us:

And I think this is where people like this stop reading:

Because what follows is:

Can see how much of a "monster" he is?? He went and listened to Nagato and asked them about their stories, which Nagato could have said no to but he shut Konan up so he could talk, but apparantly Naruto is the monster here. Well Nagato goes on and explains his backstory and pain to which Naruto responds by saying. Wait before anything I would like to insert this panel.

Moving on:

Naruto's response was basically "

“I don’t have the answer. The world is messed up, and I understand what you’re saying. But killing you here wouldn’t align with what my teacher believed in. And because I value him, I’m choosing to believe in his ideals too. If you’re right that people change drastically when they experience pain, and that’s what keeps the cycle of violence going then I’ll do the opposite. I’ll strive to remain someone who holds onto those beliefs, no matter what happens.”

No projection. No comparison of trauma. No attempt to diminish the other person’s pain. In fact the person who projects on the other is Nagato himself:

That's it. That's the entire conversation between the two.

Reached the 30 pics per post will make another one moving on to Sasuke(Part 2).

[greatgardentree]

Indra and Ashura Otsutsuki

I’ve been in the Naruto Tumblr fandom for a while, reading takes from all sorts of ‘factions’ and individuals. But honestly, I was kind of disturbed when I got to the pro-Uchiha side because you’d think that, with all the reading and comprehension they brag about, the story of Indra and Ashura would be obvious. And yet…

Exhibit A:

You would expect every single person with a K-12 education to get what is being said without much issue considering Hagoromo had to dumb himself down for Naruto to understand but from that "side" you get "Ashura did not inherit anything" how do you get that from this "ONE POSSESSED GENES CONTAINING MY POWERFUL CHAKRA, AND ONE DID NOT…"

This is the Japanese text: "ワシの つよ強いチャクラを も いでんし 持つ遺伝子と そうでもない いでんし" literally meaning "The genes that carry my strong chakra, and the genes that do not." The man is speaking about his genes and their expression in his two children:

Confirmed here with the words "…BUT NO MATTER HOW EXCEPTIONAL BOTH PARENTS ARE...THERE'S NO GUARANTEE ONE WILL INHERIT OUTRIGHT EITHER OF THEIR ABILITIES… SOUND FAMILIAR?" Again K-12 education this is him repeating what he has been saying. You would expect the pro-Uchiha crowd to notice the adverbial qualifier modifying the verb “inherit.”. There is a difference between “…there’s no guarantee one will inherit either of their abilities…” and “…there’s no guarantee one will inherit outright either of their abilities…” Japanese: "りょうしん両親がいくらゆうしゅう優秀とて･･･うちからその力をそのまま受け継ぐとはかぎらんこころあ･･･心当たりがあろう･･･"

Then we have him detailing the lives both sons lived:

No explanation needed here they seem to somehow understand this part perfectly(for some reason).

Again no explanation needed here it is clear and concise. However look at the tail end "And then..." or "そして" if you prefer it in Japanese. It is a conjunctive adverb/sentence connector. “X happened. And then Y happened.” Simple right??? If only.

"…WHILE STRUGGLING THROUGH TRAINING, THE POWER OF BODILY CHAKRA AWAKENED WITHIN HIM AND HE ATTAINED POWER RIVALING HIS BROTHER'S." Again the verb "Awakened" should be skullfucking you with what is being conveyed here but no no no no, somehow, someway I don't know maybe through the work of a higher deity people still get confused because of the words that follow "HE CAME TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE WAS ABLE TO BECOME STRONG THANKS TO THE COOPERATION AND HELP OF THOSE AROUND HIM." Meaning: Ashura realizes the lesson that his growth wasn’t just his own doing. Strength is both innate (the awakened bodily chakra) AND cultivated through effort + cooperation.

What’s even more hilarious is that these same people will praise Kishimoto for his artistic genius… and then completely ignore the meaning he’s trying to convey when he actually uses that art to tell the story. Like:

Followed by:

Notice the difference??? How what Hagoromo(Kishimoto) says matched what he is showing Naruto(and the audience). The moon, symbolizing that he’s still in his brother’s shadow, and his followers actively stepping in to match Indra’s power in Ashura’s first panel… followed by the panel where he stands in the sun, the background lightened and his followers’ weapons absent, showing that he has fully come into his own power. Simple and straightforward you don't need advanced sight or comprehension to understand.

You can have your interpretations, everyone’s entitled to their own take. But when fandom allegiance starts taking priority over what the text actually says, that’s when there’s a real problem. At that point, you’re no longer analyzing; you’re just twisting the story to fit your agenda. And that’s exactly what I see with some of the pro-Uchiha side they’ll praise Kishimoto for his storytelling and artistry, yet when he uses those very tools to convey meaning, they throw it out the window. They ignore the subtle visual cues, the symbolism, and the narrative logic, all because it doesn’t fit the version of Indra they want to celebrate(ironically the other side of the "Naruto had natural reserves from birth" coin).

I could shrug it off as harmless fandom behavior, but then there’s the one who’s (or was) a university student in an English course, repeatedly parroting these same misreads, and it makes you wonder… what exactly were they learning there? If you can’t read a text (manga or otherwise) and grasp the obvious cause and effect, the themes of inheritance versus effort, and the visual storytelling, then all that education really amounts to is a fancy certificate.