Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Am I too woke for thinking that the "___ if it was written by Gooseworx" meme was fucked up and kinda transphobic? Like, you're taking a scene about a trans girls suicide and then making fun of it by making a version of it with the death of any plain old villain from any piece of media. Like, I can't be the only one who has problems with that, right?
ill be honest the way people talk abt gooseworx is absolute insane for the crime of... idk making something thats just ok? i heard she said shitty things years ago but 90% of the time the people that bring it up are people who absolutely said things of the same caliber if not worse in the past lol. and its obvious they only care for it as an excuse to enable harassement.
which once again all started because she made something thats considered kinda cringe at worse
Am I too woke for thinking that the "___ if it was written by Gooseworx" meme was fucked up and kinda transphobic? Like, you're taking a scene about a trans girls suicide and then making fun of it by making a version of it with the death of any plain old villain from any piece of media. Like, I can't be the only one who has problems with that, right?
To explain why, I'll distinguish between two ends on the Spectrum of Mockery™. I'll use examples with the Queen's death in 2022.
1) Flippant Jokes
This type of mockery doesn't care about the target one way or the other. The humor comes with the surprise and audacity of contrasting something socially serious with something socially light-hearted and absurd.
I'm so sad the Queen died; she missed the release of the cute animal deckbuilder roguelike Zoominoes on PC by only 4 years.
As much as I enjoy Zoominoes, people do not think of it with the importance and tension of the British monarchy, which creates comedic tension.
When people object to jokes like this, they claim these jokes do not give the Queen, or human life in general, sufficient deference. They should take her and life more seriously.
2) Hostile Mockery
This type of mockery actively dislikes (and/or misunderstands) the target. Beyond just not showing deference, they contain aggressive (and/or incorrect) messages.
I'm so sad the Queen died; now, we're too late to guillotine her.
This mockery goes beyond positioning the Queen and her death in a comedic, silly, less-serious light. It celebrates her death, sends a message that her death was actively good, the only hangup being that her death was less violent and shameful.
Unlike before, I don't quite call this mockery a joke. Sure, it uses the tools of comedy for subversion and effect – it uses a set up of reacting one way to the Queen's death, and surprises you by turning that reaction completely on its head.
But it's not trying very hard to be funny. Its primary goal is sending a message, and its appeal comes from catharsis in people who hate the target, and enjoy seeing them dragged low, or, like, people feeling validated by misunderstandings due to their (potentially willful) ignorance.
When people object to jokes like this, they object more to the message. In this case, they would dislike political executions.
From your post and looking up some examples, this meme seems like flippant mockery, not hostile mockery. I'm not seeing demeaning messages towards trans people, suicide, or Gooseworx, but I am seeing people taking her work and characters not seriously.
I understand why people object to flippant mockery.
It naturally can leave a bad taste in our mouth and negative emotion when something we care about is mocked.
There are some topics that, big-picture, deserve seriousness, and that can feel violated here.
It sometimes is hard to see and draw the line between flippant jokes and hostile mockery. When people become more loose and uncontrolled in being humorous – which they often are – they might slip from one side of the spectrum to the other and not understand the difference.
Despite all that, I believe objecting to flippant mockery is ultimately a fruitless road. (Of course, we cannot control immediate emotional reactions; that's not what I'm talking about here.)
Societally, we make flippant jokes on all sorts of things, from death, to crushing injury, to mental health, to crimes. The topic you discuss is undoubtedly a serious topic, but so all are these. If we object to one, and we applied that logic going forward, we would object to slapstick cartoon violence, and other material most of us agree is clearly above-board.
When we react to one (type of) flippant joke by pathologizing it, but not others, that reveals the nature of the offense to me. A wound coming not from this type of joke being inherently bad, but from us particularly valuing one topic over others. You might care more about, for example, your mentioned topic versus serious physical injury.
To be clear, this differential caring is not a bad thing. We all have different values and priorities that do not line up with some supposed Optimal Moral Welfare or whatever. That's called being a human person.
However, if we jump from that position to "humor that treats my prioritized values less seriously is wrong," well... what about everyone else's prioritized values? If we shut down all humor that anyone felt a negative emotional reaction to, we wouldn't have much humor left, I think. And sure, some people have bad values. But there's many more people who reasonably are just, not fans of certain jokes on certain things, which are still not fundamentally pathology.
Further, for these flippant jokes to work at all, they require people to take the topic seriously, or the comedic contrast fails to exist. Your topic is one that people should take seriously and do take seriously in normal life, which is good, and which is why the joke works. The joke, by engaging the broad world of humor, provides a temporary exception space where normal societal rules and ideas don't apply the same.
Hostile mockery goes beyond that comedic context. It says the normal societal rules and ideas are wrong, and should not apply outside the context of the mockery. I agree that hostile mockery on this topic would be bad.
I don't like these guys. They're my least favorite Warhammer faction
I don't like at all how they're basically just bigger, better Space Marines without anything that makes the Space Marines actually cool. The Custodes having Terminator armor, Dreadnoughts, jet bikes, power weapons and a litany of other units that are basically just Space Marine stuff that's golden and supposed to be even more elite is really boring
They don't really work out too well lore wise. So there's this army that even the Primarchs respect on some level for their immense power, where every individual would be capable of taking a planet by himself and who are regarded as perfect... and they don't do shit. They failed their only mission 10.000 years ago and are just staring at walls doing nothing. Occasionally appearing on the battlefield to serve as nothing more but a measuring stick for the big bad on the field
And whereas the Space Marines have chapters of massive variety that are all based on different cultures and subcultures and are unique by themselves, with dozens of individuals that are fascinating by themselves, the Custodians are all just uncooperative assholes. Valdor is the custodian who got the most lore and he's just a strong guy that doesn't have many emotions and is kind of a dick
I just don't like them. If they were more weird and freaky guys that look like widely mutated humans, they could serve as an alternative evolutionary path from the Adeptus Mechanicus, they'd differentiate themselves from the Space Marines and they could be like the Emperor's lesser demon equivalent. As they're right now, I'd rather just play Space Marines, and I don't even like the Marines all that much
I don't like these guys. They're my least favorite Warhammer faction
I don't like at all how they're basically just bigger, better Space Marines without anything that makes the Space Marines actually cool. The Custodes having Terminator armor, Dreadnoughts, jet bikes, power weapons and a litany of other units that are basically just Space Marine stuff that's golden and supposed to be even more elite is really boring
They don't really work out too well lore wise. So there's this army that even the Primarchs respect on some level for their immense power, where every individual would be capable of taking a planet by himself and who are regarded as perfect... and they don't do shit. They failed their only mission 10.000 years ago and are just staring at walls doing nothing. Occasionally appearing on the battlefield to serve as nothing more but a measuring stick for the big bad on the field
And whereas the Space Marines have chapters of massive variety that are all based on different cultures and subcultures and are unique by themselves, with dozens of individuals that are fascinating by themselves, the Custodians are all just uncooperative assholes. Valdor is the custodian who got the most lore and he's just a strong guy that doesn't have many emotions and is kind of a dick
I just don't like them. If they were more weird and freaky guys that look like widely mutated humans, they could serve as an alternative evolutionary path from the Adeptus Mechanicus, they'd differentiate themselves from the Space Marines and they could be like the Emperor's lesser demon equivalent. As they're right now, I'd rather just play Space Marines, and I don't even like the Marines all that much
I think at least they serve a useful gameplay niche. If you're wanting the expensive and elite super-soldiers, marines aren't fulfilling that despite the lore. They're functionally the baseline because of how common they and their variants are. I don't consider Custodes as Marines+ the most exciting faction either (If I'm committing to super-elite units, I'll run Knights instead), but I see the value in having a faction that is Marines+. Certainly more than Guard, which can no more compete with Sisters as Marines- as they can out-horde Orks, out-underdog GSC, out-shoot Tau, out-coordinate Tyranids,...
Powerscaling should be only a part of the VS community in service to the story, not the other way around. The answer to "Who would win in a fight" comes down way more to who the characters actually are and what part they play in their stories than some number that I can guarantee you will have no power over how that character will be used in the future. If the stories these characters are from are not written based on these numbers, why would they hold power over them here? What's more important than the numbers are why the numbers are there. Why should the character be considered this strong? Is this feat supposed to be taken seriously, or is it a joke that would not happen if there were actual stakes? Did this character perform this feat because that's an accurate assessment of their power, or did they do it because they needed to do it to move the story, and if it's the latter, could they pull a higher number if they needed to do so again? All of these questions should be considered if what you're trying to ask is "would this character beat this character" and not "would the version of this character I made up in my head beat this version of this other character I made up in my head based on stats these characters are not tied down by?" The VS community does not care about any of these and instead play by rules they made up so they can win arguments, and so most discussions in the community are worthless. When thinking about how two characters would interact if brought into conflict and who would come out on top, there are a lot of good ways you can decide on an outcome, and yet apparently we've settled one a very very bad way.
I think a far better way to do this that would result in greater works of art would be to focus on the story first and use powerscaling to flesh out the details, if you use it at all. Figure out the characters in context to their stories, and also figure out the stories themselves. Once you do so, figure out how these stories and what these characters are meant for could, would, and in your opinion should interact. If a character is meant to be a pillar of hope shining through the dark who you can always count on to save the day, that's a good sign they should probably win the fight, and if they don't there should be a good reason for why the other character would overcome them based off of what their story is. Once you've figured out who should win, then you try to make sense of the fight. Here, you want to think about how their abilities and toolkits interact, and here is also where you may finally get to do some powerscaling. But don't go crazy. Instead of finding the biggest numbers you can, instead think about how the characters are usually portrayed. If a character is consistently portrayed as powerful in their stories, you should consider making them the stronger one here regardless of what the numbers you pulled out of your ass have to say. Of course, the stakes of the story also matter. If character 1 is only considered strong because they are in a fairly grounded world and character 2 is consistantly established to be able to just blow up planets, you should probably make character 2 the stronger one. This part is very subjective and there's a lot of intricacies going into it. There's probably not one correct answer, but more should be put into it than just numbers. Whether feats are consistent or outliers compared to what the character is usually portrayed as needs to be acknowledged, and what is less important than the exact numbers are the general vibe and level of feats.
Once you've established what you're working with, now comes the how. How would this fight play out? But remember, how the fight plays out is not just decided by the character's abilities, because the victor has more to do with the story. Instead of viewing it like a math problem, view it like a puzzle. It's not "would character 1 beat character 2" it's "how could character 1 beat character 2". You also probably need to ask the reverse regardless of who is going to win, because in most scenarios the story will be better if the fight isn't easy. This should be very obvious, but I've seen way too many powerscalers complain even when the matchup went the way they wanted it to because one character wasn't beaten to the ground in an instant. It is important to remember that as the writer, you can bend the rules. You should ideally do so sparingly, and things will be more satisfying if you don't have to, but if it makes the story better you can do it. If you run into problems and it seems like the character that should win wouldn't be able to, maybe allow a win condition of death of a thousand cuts, even if you have decided prior that that wouldn't be feasible. And you should also know that backpedaling on the verdict is an option. If the narrative reasons for each of them winning are comparable, then you should be able to factor in how the fight would go down. And even if the one that narratively should very obviously win can't feasibly do so, you still have another tool. Because what you should also be free to do is decide how the fight ends, because there's no reason the fight should inherently end with one of them dead. This freedom will make your stories better. If the hero can't defeat the villain, maybe this isn't the end. Maybe the hero escapes with their life and is going to come back for round two, maybe in better circumstances or with backup. You don't necessarily have to write that too, but in many circumstances it would be less dissatisfying than the hero just dying. Or maybe the hero manages to screw over the villain's victory. Whether or not they retain their life in the process is up to you. If the fight is between two heroes, would it be bad for their character if one of them killed the other? If so, no biggie, because the fight doesn't have to end that way. And while you can easily write a fight between two villains to end with one of them killing the other, you could not if you don't want to for whatever reason. Maybe the victor recognizes the losers strength and they agree to an alliance to further their own goals. If you want that to happen, you can do that. It's all up to you, because you shouldn't have to play by the rules of powerscaling, because they suck and make art worse.
The takeaway is you should treat characters like characters and stories like stories, not as background elements to your online argument. As Stan Lee famously said "The person who would win in a fight is the person the writer wants to win." And does anyone honestly want this? Visual gags deciding the outcome of a fight? Unsatisfying endings where the villain just kills the hero despite it going against what would happen in both series? Pieces of art made worse because we stuck to these arbitrary rules?
I understand thinking FNAF should be treated like Harry Potter, but I've seen people say it's just as bad and that's genuinely insane. JK Rowling is objectively worse than Scott Cawthon in every way. One is a guy who was caught donating to Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump years ago one time and shortly after also donated a smaller but still large some to the Treavor Project and hasn't really been heard from politically again to my knowledge, and the other is arguably the single biggest active threat to trans people in the world and practically wants to legalize hunting trans women for sport. It is also far easier to ignore Harry Potter entirely in the big 2026 than it is FNAF. I genuinely think at this point children are more likely to have seen the Foxy jumpscare than to know what Harry Potter is. I am not condoning Scott Cawthon or his destructive actions, but for all we know he was one of the many people radicalized away from the right by the shitshow that is Trump 2.0. Even if that is the case it's still terrible he hasn't made a public apology and publicly donated millions to undo his actions and he very well still could be funding the right, but he isn't organizing mobs to sexually harass any slightly non-conforming women in case one of them might be trans. These two are not comparable, and I think saying Scott Cawthon is as bad as JK Rowling diminishes just how destructive JK Rowling is.
I think part of why people still purchase Harry Potter stuff is that they don't know just how bad she is. Everyone's heard she's transphobic, but that doesn't say anything. There are countless transphobic people that paying for media funds. Rich people in general tend to suck. For a long time I didn't know how truly uniquely dangerous JK Rowling is, and I think that's the case for a lot of people. They either think she's just another morally deficient rich person or they think she's as dangerous as your average big business that pulls a Nestle every once in a while, and that buying Harry Potter stuff is just another drop in the ocean. They don't know she's the center of hate against trans people and that simply engaging in her franchise is giving her more influence with which to hurt people. JK Rowling is not a Scott Cawthon. JK Rowling is a unique creature closer to Elon Musk than Scott Cawthon, and pretending they're on the same level downplays the harm supporting Harry Potter fuels.
Hot take, it is pointless to compare apples and oranges. There isn't much difference between an apple and orange when you use one to brutally beat your enemies to death.
its kinda weird the phrase is comparing apples to oranges for ridiculous comparisons bc like... theyre both fruit and often have similar usage in juices and desserts and whatever you can compare them. sometimes you gotta. it should have been comparing apples to pens or something
its kinda weird the phrase is comparing apples to oranges for ridiculous comparisons bc like... theyre both fruit and often have similar usage in juices and desserts and whatever you can compare them. sometimes you gotta. it should have been comparing apples to pens or something
People who drive around with their high beams on for zero fucking reason should get life in a maximum security prison. Fuck restorative justice, this is about vengeance.
People who drive around with their high beams on for zero fucking reason should get life in a maximum security prison. Fuck restorative justice, this is about vengeance.
It's not even the high beams anymore, man. New cars come with these insanely bright LEDs as the default setting, and they just passively endanger everyone else on the road when it's dark. Tradition holds that you tell someone to turn their brights off by flashing yours at them, and they flash theirs back to tell you to fuck off if you're mistaken. I haven't flashed my brights at anyone in years because I can never tell anymore.
The scene from Thor Love & Thunder where he's stripped naked and tied up was based as fuck. Mass market big budget blockbusters need to be made hornier again and it's a shame this one effort was rejected and tied to a shit movie
The scene from Thor Love & Thunder where he's stripped naked and tied up was based as fuck. Mass market big budget blockbusters need to be made hornier again and it's a shame this one effort was rejected and tied to a shit movie
Absolute FACTS, it’s gotten to the point where I actively groan when I think about making preparations for the holidays. I’ve been very vocal with my family in the past about how I view present shopping, but it’s made even worse when I can’t exactly give people answers for myself. I’m at the point now where anything I want I can save up for and buy on my own, so when people say “what do you want for Christmas?”, it almost feels like an insult because when I’m able to work hard and buy something with the money that I earned, I feel very proud of myself.
