- Joined
- Oct 2, 2025
- Messages
- 1
Violence isn't a an answer it's a question and the answer is YESAnother delay, another excuse on the afterwords. I hope you don't get tired of reading my excuses
Ore ni Trauma wo Ataeta Joshi-tachi ga Chirachira Mitekuru kedo, Zannen desu ga Teokure desu - Vol. 6 Ch. 26.1 - 「The Worst Outcome」
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
LMAO the glasses teacher stood there watching MC getting stomped by the whole class with 0 (literally 0) attempt to stop them, but the moment he tries to put his hand on a girl she instantly teleports behind him and grab his hand like I agree the girl didn't deserve to be hit but where was that bravado when MC was getting stomped
like I agree the girl didn't deserve to be hit but where was that bravado when MC was getting stomped Fuck yes, beat his ass. I don't give a shit that they're kids, I promise you there must've been other boys in that class that clearly didn't take advantage of the chance to freely engage in violence against a socially-approved target (for whom there are no reputational/social consequences for targetting). Those who did, clearly revealed their capacity for evil, and thus forfeited their right to not get their ass beat, even if they're children. You feel brave and willing enough to dish out violence into this world? You can gladly be the recipient of it. Welcome to the world of men lol.
Only thing I disagree with is Kokonoe trying to hit the girl, even though she cheered and further egged them on in the violence. At the end of the day, she played the role of a spectator (though an active one), which is the stereotypical/normative role for girls/women to play in matters of violence, since they're not as capable of it as men are, so the forms of aggression that girls use to target those they dislike is through reputation destruction, gossip via the broader and more numerous social connections women tend to possess compared to men, or in this case, the active encouragement of violence through a proxy (other male kids beating the target she dislikes). What she did is wrong, but her actions are not as bad as the male kids who actually used violence. This is just a privilege nature/society has granted women, and it will never go away, and you will always look like a dick to 99% of women and most men for breaking it, no matter how logically justified you are (double standards don't give a shit about logic, they exist, have always existed, and are here to stay, so make your peace with them) in using "gender equality" to hit them back.
Only thing I disagree with is Kokonoe trying to hit the girl, even though she cheered and further egged them on in the violence. At the end of the day, she played the role of a spectator (though an active one), which is the stereotypical/normative role for girls/women to play in matters of violence, since they're not as capable of it as men are, so the forms of aggression that girls use to target those they dislike is through reputation destruction, gossip via the broader and more numerous social connections women tend to possess compared to men, or in this case, the active encouragement of violence through a proxy (other male kids beating the target she dislikes). What she did is wrong, but her actions are not as bad as the male kids who actually used violence. This is just a privilege nature/society has granted women, and it will never go away, and you will always look like a dick to 99% of women and most men for breaking it, no matter how logically justified you are (double standards don't give a shit about logic, they exist, have always existed, and are here to stay, so make your peace with them) in using "gender equality" to hit them back.
Its not about proof, it's about Preconceived Opinion.
Once people have a a certain opinion about someone, they won't change unless someone else is used to divert the opinion.
Yeah, MC did provided proof for his innocence, but even if the other kids understood it all, that doesn't mean they would accept it, because some
- wouldn't want to believe the proof even after accepting it, as they would think that if someone is doubted for some wrong doing, that means that person is bad to begin with, and even if they are not at fault for the current situation they might still be guilty for something else in the past or future, while
- others don't want to change their opinion, and
- there would be some afraid to accept the truth as that would make their own actions incriminating
Yeah, there might be some who might change their opinion and even apologize, but that number is usually quite few in such mass situation.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2023
- Messages
- 252
both of them where littreally stuned at the whole sight of what was happening that is a perfectly normal reaction to seeing something shocking like that. Calling them out for they actions before hand is alright but lets not pretend we can't see what's going on here.LMAO the glasses teacher stood there watching MC getting stomped by the whole class with 0 (literally 0) attempt to stop them, but the moment he tries to put his hand on a girl she instantly teleports behind him and grab his hand
we see glasses sensei all the time in the current timeline, she is literally there in the same school as the mc. She even made a comment early in reference to this event
they don't need to accept it immediately, but they would think twice from that point moving forward. Ppl normally don't change their minds in a single event, but the events are still necessary to plant the seed
nah I call bullshit. wdym there's no further threat? the kids already started beating up once, why would you think they wouldn't continue as soon as he got confident? they need to comprehend you are someone they wouldn't want to mess with, that in my books is self-defense still.
As i said, in many countries that kind-off self-defense is considered illegal and would be incriminating in majority of situations.
Because just holding a weapon against someone isn't considered as life-threatening, it's when the said weapon is used to cause harm is when its considered as life-threatening.
Like if someone is pointing a gun at you (without firing), then any action you take as self-defense must not be excessive (except in some scenarios), and killing someone in self-defense in such scenario is always considered as excessive.
nah go back, his mother was not just "inquiring for more information" she was literally saying something like "if you need something I can buy it so you don't need to steal", implying that he did steal
fuck but why is every woman in this series "I wronged you so now I want you to fuck me"?
maybe legally, morally? NAH, if would be something the kids swing once at him, but they were literally ganging up on him, beating him 3v1 while he begged them to stop and while the rest of the kids cheered (which means they might even join given the opportunity). At that point, I think you should be able to defend yourself by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. I would say that even grabbing a gun and starting to blast should be a reasonable response. You can literally die by getting beaten by a single person, now imagine 3
Problem is, while they were stunned because of the whole situation (aka., not reacting to MC getting beat-up), the only situation they reacted to when MC tried to punish a girl for taking part. If they were really literally stunned, why did that Glass Teacher only react in that particular scenario? I mean, when MC fought back, he did it quickly to not give time for anyone to react quickly.
But the Glass Teacher was able to react to one particular scenario, meaning she could have reacted earlier, but didn't.
Realistically, since they are kids, the most likely scenario would be, that if something else happen in the future, they would first blame it on MC, because of the preconceived notion. They would actually not think twice and blame him immediately.
The only situation when they would think twice before pointing fingers at MC in the future, is when the real culprit is caught. If the real one isn't caught, the classmates would keep believing that MC is directly or indirectly still involved and thus a culprit.
wasn't she literally cheering for him to get beaten even more? if she is not scared enough, she will ALWAYS be a threat to him, potentially egging others into beating him, she is literally calling for violence! that's literally illegal 😂
yeah I mean... take into consideration that his only ally during this whole arc is the childhood friend, whose fucked up started the series, when she lost her he truly had no one anymore, unless you count the incest aunt
Did you not see last chapter when one of the kids literally tried to curb stump his HEAD into the ground? That shit IS a murder attempt. Kids, with their heads being that vulnerable at that age, are especially susceptible to being sent to the freaking hospital as vegetables for that shit. In what way was this not a "death match?" The whole point of the scene is to show that these kids felt they found a morally righteous, socially acceptable justification to engage in limitless violence without consequences.
I definitely agree that hitting the girl would've been too far and not self-defense in any way, but come on, those kids had it coming and deservedly got their ass beat. I'm also not a fan of putting the onus/burden of "proportional retaliation/self-defense" on a kid who's actively being curbstomped on his head, kidneys, just all parts of his body, etc by MULTIPLE assailants. My priority in that case is giving said victim the freedom to even go an extra step or two beyond what is "probably enough" to GUARANTEE their own personal safety. Also, none of them backed up in any significant capacity, Kokonoe eliminated them one-by-one on his own. In fact, when he started to fight back, even after seeing what he did to two of his assailants, that last guy actually LUNGED him and tried to inflict more violence. The threat was not finished, and onslaught of violence against him was being continued. He was fully justified 100% in the way he dealt with the boys.
Last edited:
If you are talking about morally, then normally it would be said that you shouldn't fight back or harm anyone else even as self-defense.
Morally its considered wrong to hurt others, even if they are hurting you.
If you hurt someone else even as self-defense especially excessive, then you are not doing it based on morals, but based on self-aggression.
Morally, violence or defense is only accepted when you are saving/protecting someone else (though again excessive isn't accepted).
bro I don't know the legal part of this but holy shit if someone is trying to steal from you while holding a weapon, killing them should be permitted unless you kill them AFTER they left and were clearly not a danger to you anymore. But at the same time, even if they left, after stealing from you, shouldn't you be able to protect your property
NAH, this is cuck shit. If someone does physical harm to you, they have escalated the situation from a peaceful one to a violent one, they are not at fault only for the harm caused but also for turning the situation into a shitty one. A measured response to someone punching your face is not to punch their face but to break their arm.
Similar threads
