Hey @jacksmusesdrv3 I’ve been following your exchange with Skylar and I have something that I feel a third party has to address (with their blessing, just so I’m not accused of butting in):
You keep calling them out on ‘assuming‘ and ad hominems while your response is one of the rudest things I’ve seen. I won’t address any actual points properly since it’s not my lane but I will not hesitate to call you out (and Skylar, you’re allowed to reblog this if you want of course)
“I’m not saying your suggestion is a bad deduction because of course, his organisation isn’t as huge of a thing in terms of its influence, but again, this is a layer. One layer =/= the full package. We’re going to come across this issue a lot, so enough with ‘only reason’.“
The bold does jack shit to explain what you actually mean, as does everything else. Saying ‘enough with x‘ makes you sound like you believe you have control over the other side’s words, which you don’t, so I’d suggest being more polite. Additionally, this paragraph ofers no text-based explanation of there being more, it’s just you saying the other side doesn’t see everything you do.
“This is where you’re really starting to lose me. You think I’m assuming. That’s the same as assuming that I’m assuming. Besides, it’s not an assumption at all to suggest that say, ‘ten working under Ouma’ and ‘only nine being present’ is suspicious as all hell, and Shuichi should have questioned it at least once.”
I have to bounce the ball back - aren’t you assuming they’re assuming you’re assuming? It’s a childish game you’re playing to avoid actually addressing the point. For the record ‘I think you’re assuming...’ is not an insult. It’s an assertion based on what you said that you can easily prove wrong by explaining your reasoning.
As for whether that specific point of yours is an assumption - it is. A detail lke that is easy to overlook, and it not being pointed out by anyone in the game points to it being a honest error and not a planned important point. But that’s just my assumption, that I admit is an assumption, just like Skylar did.
“So that’s a big ‘citation needed’ on your implied ‘coincidence’ or ‘irrelevant’ for starters. But that’s not all.”
It’s not really, no. I’m sure the actual point will be responded to in the response soon, but I just want to point out you come off as really aggressive and agitated in this paragraph, and there are less intimidating ways of asking for proof - which you yourself don’t provide.
“Like dude, if even Shuichi is thinking ‘hey something’s weird, is he really lying?’ that says entire omnibuses, and holds way more weight than your assumption that he ‘just gave up the jig’.”
Does it really? Saihara is inherently distrustful of Ouma and he doesn’t have access to all the same information genre-savvy, Ouma-loving audience does. At that point, he and a lot of other peoplre who don’t like him as much will have a hard time deciding if he’s lying or not. It’s not a matter of it actually meaning something. Your insistence on that is frankly insulting considering Skylar put a lot of thought into their interpretation bcause, spoilers, they love his character and can interpret if he meant something or not. Hell, I personally don’t agree with every interpretation but yours or Saihara’s (???????????) don’t inherently hold more weight.
“Besides that certain key hints actually are straight up smack bang in your face and you are in fact choosing to dismiss them (not even first narrative run, but on the analytical level even), you know what else this game encourages you to do, but doesn’t spoonfeed you into doing so, if you do not want to?
Research. Decode. Find what things mean.”
Okay so, this stuck out to me as the single rudest and least self-aware part of the entire post. I realise I can be rude too but my god, this is next level.
This would be rude under any circumstances, mind. You’re essenially calling your opponent stupid and willfuly ignorant for not seeing things the same way you do, and ‘dismissing’ things you deem important. It’s offensive and wrong on its own, but I want to point out two things here.
One, you yourself have thrown MASSIVE temper tantrums when someone pointed out things you missed, like anime references you didn’t realise were anime references. One could easily argue the references were put there to be recognised, or there are so many because the mastermind is an otaku. You chose to dismiss that because it doesn’‘t fit your view and exposes that you didn’t know something.
Two, the people who call you out and respond to you are, in fact, fans of the game who analysed it and came too their own conclusions based on their perspective an observations. They do, in fact, do their research, and they do in fact try too connect things logically. The game is so messy that multiple intelligent and dedicated people have come to multiple detailed conclusions.. But none of them ever get as rude at each other as you have at everyone who disagrees.
Side note, if the game doesn’t want to spoonfeed us information. why should anyon let you, ostensibly not the creator, someone with extremely questionable proof and attitude, spoonfeed us second-hand information? It’s good for everyone that you’re being questioned and disagreed with.
“Ouma intentionally says things in a manner that is confusing, yes.
But you don’t have a damn clue WHY he is doing it this way, do you?”
They do, actually, and have stated so multiple times.
Again, you’re not the creator. Your explanation is not the standard everyone should aspire to. Someone not agreeing with your interpretation is not clueless by default. That’s rude, presumptuous, and really arrogant.
“Gonna have to stop you there with a small clarification but also this is another assumption from you- I never once said the video itself was fake, just that there’s something fishy about it (the presentation).”
They said ‘I think you think‘, so yes, they admitted it’s an assumption. You don’t need to point that out. Just disprove it, like you did later anyway. People assume things all the time, and it’s normal to do so when you give every indication that that’s the case. It doesn’t make their case less legitimate.
“And please, ‘could be paid actors’ is an assumption in of itself given the circumstances so unless you’ve got something more solid than Kaede’s literal fragment memory of the sealing before she should even logically HAVE it in Tsumugi’s ‘narrative’, and Ouma’s group being bloodied while the others’ situations were obscured, then cool it with telling me I’m making assumptions.”
By this point I hope you realise how funny it is to see you call them out on saying you make assumptions when you called them out on it like 5 times, no? Also, yes. It is an assumption. That’s why the phrase used is ‘could be‘, and not ‘are‘ or even probably are‘. It’s an assumption that’s a counter to your assumption, given as an example. You have no reason to get woorked up over it. And again. You’re demanding proof in a really aggressive way, when there’s no reason to. You can and should be polite in a debate, and stay away from ad hominems.
“Speaking of ‘furthering agendas’ the one getting progressively more mad at the other over certain content used sounds like they’re harbouring more than just an agenda. But that’s none of my business. You have decided that my evidence is all arbitrary, that it’s based on agenda. On what authority exactly? Your own basis for this holds up about as well as a bridge made out of caster sugar.“
This is another disgusting ad hominem, and another example of you sounding aggressive over nothing - while calling Skylar out on sounding mad? They honestly don’t to me, call me out on a bias if you need, but I don’t see it. They just sound tired, and I would be too, if I had to base on ‘evidence‘ I find inherently unconvincing. Truth is, I can and will turn your question around: you have decided that all your evidence is irrefutable. On what authority exactly? You are the one who decided to share your theory with the world. We are your audience, and we don’t find your proof good enough. You can either try harder to convince us, accept that we may have a point too, or give up on us entirely. You opted to doo none of the above and instead insist that finding your evidence flimsy is 1. a personal insult 2 a sign that we weren’t paying attention to the game.
Nobody in the room sounds angrier than you, and I know for a fact that Skylar doesn’t have an agenda and didn’t even want to engage for the longest time. The only agenda here is an attempt at a fair debate.
“It’s a situation bred for making assumptions- which again, is what you’re doing in order to back your own claims in the first place. You do not know what their rule is based on objectively, you’re assuming a practicality based on your own take.”
Assumption accusation number who-the-hell-is-counting. And this one I can turn on you as well - you are making assumptions based on your take, too, except unlike Skylar, you don’t admit they’re assumptions, spitballing, one of many options, or look for proof of that assumption where you could find it. You treat your take as the only possibility, because you connected it to some other event that the game never did, or it reminded you of a book quote, and anybody who doesn’t see the connection is a shallow moron. You can’t call someone out on something when you’re doinng it too except worse in every way.
“Besides that once again, it’s not even solely ‘bonus shit’ that backs me up, exactly how is the conclusion ‘more reasonable’? At all? We’re supposed to buy that he goes around the world putting his and others’ life. in. danger just to make merry while… pretending to be a special kind of villain at the same time? What has this villain persona even got to do with funny crimes at all?
The problem with taking all this at face value is that it completely neglects any given context towards Ouma’s title, given by the god damned government, which unambiguously suggests ‘dictator’. There is a purpose for this ominous title that we are not spoonfed, suggesting Ouma’s role as Trojan horse more than simply a happenstance spark who… happened to go off and set all these things in motion because he happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right levels of skill and the right mindset for a sabotage, to boot.”
Hey Jacks, did you know that apparently when coming up with Ouma’s title, they never really considered it to be connected to dictatorship, but more of a director role? And its connection to dictatorship was more for a joke, and that’s why his official art is like that? Because Kodaka likes tasteless jokes? But I digress.
I’m sure this point will, again, be elaborated further in the rebuttal proper, but I want to point something out - ‘Ouma’s role as a Trojan horse‘ is entirely your invention. It is. He’s not called that anywhere, as far as I know. His role is, simply, a guy who lies a lot and makes himself sound evil and powerful, while turning out to be a benevolent leader of a group of pranksters by the end. That’s called a plot twst. And it’s a good one, at that. It’s not only reasonable, but it’s really good payoff imo. You seem dissatisfied with it for some reason, because you want it to be deeper - that’s fair. But you are using terms and points you INVENTED to discuss something that should be discussed purely based on what the game text shows us. We all have headcanons and personal interpretations, but you can’t bring them up in a debate about the actual text. And iif you do, explain them in excruciating detail so people unfamiliar with every post you ever made can understand what you mean.
“I put it to you, if Ouma just pulled the story out of his arse, explain Shuichi’s memory. Explain how this ‘wild story’ and Shuichi’s private thoughts in the main game both align with a situation geared around ‘metaphorical death’. I don’t think I need to say how big of a reach ‘coincidence’ is for something like that, especially since they allude to events pre-capture.“
Another unecessarily aggressive request for proof. I‘m sure you are likely to get it, considering that’s the point of a debate, but by god you can’t keep doing this.
“So if you don’t know where I’m getting the reading, then I’ll tell you, but cut it out with the ‘projection’ bullshit because that’s an unnecessary PERSONAL assumption that borders on ad hominem. At best.”
1. I’ve collected here at least 3 examples of you asking for proof in increasingly aggressive ways. What Skylar expressed here is simply confusion - don’t know where you got the readings, it’s confusing, and seems like projecting. You are not one to shy away from making Oma personal. I’ve seen posts where you confessed borderline worrisome things, including projecting onto Ouma. It’s neither farfetched not out of line to assume it to be the case based on your own publiic posts.
2. I’ve also collected here a bunch of borderline ad hominems about Skylar’s assumed inability to read and analyse without being spoonfed so I’m not going to go over them again but here’s a bonus: remember when you called someone an idiot who’s more shallow than Tsumugi because she pointed out you missed a reference? or perhaps you just endorsed someone else calling her that? A stranger you knew nothing about? What about that time you vagued about people who call Ouma a prankster or a clown as if that cancels their love for him and the validity of their analysis? What about the time you put words in people’s mouths, making it seem like they have no idea what they’re talking about? Do you even know what an ad hominem IS?
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
You’ve done nothing but that for most of the existence of this blog. You don’t get to use that card. Not ever.
andulkaphoto
jacobvanloon
stormborns
germansingergirl
discoholicmusic
baratheonpilled
