Tsuki ga Michibiku Isekai Douchuu - Vol. 13 Ch. 88 - [%’*g0]

[feha]

he clearly expressed his preference for being a dude doing another dude so: fruit

I don't think I quoted myself there?

And I don't think you noticed my joke

 

[Excalibro]

Blood for the blood god
Skulls for the skull throne
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE


B̸̛͉̈́̊͗͝L̴̨̨̤̆Ǫ̶̳͕̯̽͆ͅỎ̶͖͑́͊D̶̟͈͙͒̄̾̾ ̴͙̙͆F̸̢̡̻̱̰̾͒͗͐͝Ö̴̗͓̟̮́Ṛ̶̫͙̟̬̃̎͑͂ ̷̟̗̮̊͋͛͐T̴͔̓̒͗̀̔H̴̜͌̐͘͝E̸̢͍͓̟͐̊ ̴̧̳̭̣̫̈́͝B̶̎͋͜͝L̸͚̎̌̂O̴̢͉͇̳̐̆Ö̴̖͔̥̤́̎D̶̡̙̘̪͛ ̶̣̓G̴̘̙͈͕͠Ơ̵̞̔͝ͅD̶͕̱̠̠̊ ̶̰͉͗̀S̵̨̞̝̲̐͐̄̕K̶̢̽U̵̜͂L̶̡̨͓̦̖̑L̶͕̱̇͗̓͠S̸͉̠̖̏̈́͘͠ ̸̬̌͂̽̀͝F̸̰̬̗̔̀̏O̴̤̳̎̌̾Ŗ̸͑ ̷̠̹͔̼̐͋T̶̘̼͖̔̓͂͗͠H̸̰͍͕͂È̶͉͉̝̳̀̔͛ ̷̬͗̌̕ͅS̴̈́̽͘͜K̴̠̘̎̑̐͂U̴͇̠̱̥͋̇̈́̇Ḷ̵̢̧͝L̶̟̈́̓̃̾̑ ̷̗͐͑̔̀̓T̸̖͓͇̥̈́̚H̵̞̙̝̆͗̀͛R̴̗̍̐Ơ̸͈͗́̇̂N̵̙͗̈́̿̈́͘E̴̱̯͝
̶̨͎̗̽̚͠Ť̴͇͕̬͙́͒̐̕H̷̖̞̦̣̒̇̿̈́̽E̷͈͇̫͂͆̀̅ͅ ̸̳̺͖̹͗Ţ̶̝̻͛̆I̶̺̮̒̎M̶͂̈́͋ͅḘ̸̺͖̲̈́͌ ̴͓̭͖̓́̍̐Ỉ̸̤̘̰͐Ş̷̼̭̌̀̊ ̸̞̃́͂N̷̳̞̞̐͂I̸̜̽́ͅǦ̴̝̟̻̬̖͊͑̊̆Ḥ̸̨͎͚̩̉͊̽̀

 

[eng1]

How do YOU explain what an RPG is to a person from a person in a medieval era?
Maybe with some equivalency, you can somehow manage it?

Its like a picture book where a picture moves but you can control the protagonists. Drawing it would probably be easiest

 

[TheProtectorOfPureHeartedGirls]

I thought you guys went haywire or something when you posted something unreadable,and instead gave us a bracketed special symbols lmao

 

[PsychoJing]

People sure do love fighting over nothing is this comment section don't they lmao

 

[nope361]

Get that tranny ass out of here!

 

[isoycrazy]

People sure do love fighting over nothing is this comment section don't they lmao

It's the internet...... So yes.

 

[Spooder9]

great stuff, thanks for the chapter

 

[lowarctic]

yeah I was wasted when I did that so my bad

I don't think I quoted myself there?

And I don't think you noticed my joke

 

[REDRED]

Makoto may born from hyuman, but he live a life like a human, maybe that's why the dragon dude say it like that.

I may have something to do with how the severe condition of earth enhanced his physiology.

 

[zerio]

Maybe this is a weird take, but I don't like how Tomoe is kinda selfish. I get her dilemma about losing someone that makes your life interesting. But I feel like the question about living beyond 100 should be decided by Makoto himself. If she wants him to live longer, she should communicate that to him.

Also, the fact that she pretended to not understand the space magic stuff doesn't sit well with me. Again I understand she doesn't want to be left behind. But she also didn't consider how he felt leaving his family behind.

Man, I just want them to communicate more.

 

[cksn]

wtf why doesn't tomoe want his kids

 

[Pallington]

Everything within the story is written by the author to illustrate a point to the audience, I'm making fun of the author and how he's handling information about a character within the story. Root's mental state is completely irrelevant.


I'm not applying any measures to anything other than the author and his writing. Legitimate question, do you understand the difference between meta and non-meta? Because it seems like you're having a difficult time understanding the distinction. If you do, then I don't understand why you keep bringing up the in-universe logic.

The in-universe characters, how they feel, what they think, why they think it, the rules of their universe etc. is not relevant to the discussion and at no point will it ever be. You're on a completely different subject altogether, so if you feel the need to tell me how Root or anyone IN the story feels, please understand that I won't be taking any consideration into anything relating to that statement. It may as well not exist and I will be treating it as such.

why do people insist that all characters must represent an author's viewpoint? if a guy writes a biography (or parody) on churchill, does the guy quoting churchill talking about indians with extreme racism mean the writer is racist? or does it mean the writer wants to bring attention to churchill being racist? (i want to make a new adage, for "how long until someone brings up churchill" instead of y'know the classic one.)

Orwell portraying the USSR as a pile of lying pigs sitting on top of incredibly dumb animals who can't learn past literally A,B,C, and D (orwell was a fucking liar, fyi) doesn't mean Orwell agrees with the pigs, he's yelling at his strawman.

in this case, does the writer writing root (a character portrayed as weird, eccentric, and slightly bricked in the head at almost every point in the fucking novel, whose very introduction even here is literally a pile of red flags and batshit insanity) like this mean the writer agrees with root, or does he want to bring attention to yet another way that root is weird?

like, no, not every character will agree with the author, the author will not necessarily agree with every character. Don Quixote isn't the author explaining that windmills are fucking evil, the author is laughing at people he sees as quixote-like.

You talk about "meta" and "non-meta," and try to use these words to mask your complete lack of understanding of how people write characters. Because you write characters with fallibility, with mistakes, with biases, with their own viewpoint. You don't need to make 10 copies of yourself (you can, if that's the point, but that's actually pretty rare), you make 10 roughly rational entities with their own circumstances and say "well given their circumstances, their knowledge, their premises, where would they go?" In any piece where the author intends to criticize, your "meta" analysis falls wholly flat.

 

[Pallington]

Root's opinion- Irrelevant.

Also irrelevant, has nothing to do with the joke.


Traits of a sociopath:

-Lack of Empathy or Remorse

-Socially distant

-May have a thin group of friends they care about with the rest of their relationships being shallow

-Willing to use violence to get their way

-Ignores social norms and laws


These are universally affirmed traits of a sociopath. The way the author describes Makoto falls into many of these categories, hence the joke.


....I couldn't care less about what the author was intending? My joke is about the way he fumbles information into trying to make a positive while making his character into a sociopath. I honestly don't get how this hasn't gotten through your head yet. It's like arguing with a child that thinks if they just continue to argue, they'll get their point across. But they fail to realize they're missing the point entirely and really not saying anything.

I'm sorry, but I really don't feel like trying to repeatedly explain a meta joke to someone who can't grasp the basics of what that is. I'm ending the conversation here, mate. Enjoy your day, your life or what have you, but we're not picking this up again.

"fumbles information into trying to make a positive"

this is exactly the problem, the author is writing a circumstance where such a warped view would form. Your meta "joke" is only a joke insofar as being incredibly unfunny but repeatedly defended by yourself with the very self-blindness that you accuse of others.

What the fuck is with weebs and media illiteracy?

Edit:

Like, yeah. The whole point is the irony that Root and hyuman society are so fucking bricked that hyuman society would rule makoto as a sociopath (all things considered, he has pretty normal if cynical views, and his bigotry is a direct response to hyuman bigotry, and he's a fucking prude. Yes, people of a different culture will tend to ditch the "social norms and laws" of a culture they cannot mesh with, as much as they can. This isn't fucking sociopathy, even though it may look like it. As for the other charges, spoiler spoiler mcspoiler) and Root would like him for it. It's not especially funny, that's the whole fucking point.

Sorry, you're not media illiterate, you're just celebrating the fact you managed to understand the blatantly obvious point of the encounter, and pretending you've "one-upped" the author somehow despite the author literally making it obvious as fucking day in the desert. Congratulations? Still a shit "joke," with the initial formulation. ("The author is telling us..." "I don't care what the author was intending," rofl, does the author have to do an immersion break, bring in a narrator, and explicitly say "root's take isn't exactly good" for the message to get through your thick skull?)

edit 2:

gratz, you've got me running on high gear. The last guy to do it probably blocked me after I said I was a communist. You know what you sound like? the cocky fuckers who stroll up to biology taxonomists and say "Yeah well you call it the THEORY of evolution, that means it ain't FACT, ain't that right!?" That's how you're treating "meta" with your "joke." Meta means talking about the thing from a layer above the thing, so talking about the writing process. That doesn't mean asserting a wild meta claim like "the author wrote it into words therefore the author believes in it" and then running wild with that insane and inane take to make a non-meta "joke" (because you're not talking about the writing process anymore, you're explicitly talking about "what the author's message is"), it means discussing the meta claim to begin with, so, my meta attack on your assertion.

 

[Hitspark]

why do people insist that all characters must represent an author's viewpoint?

They don't, you're taking it too seriously.

if a guy writes a biography (or parody) on churchill, does the guy quoting churchill talking about indians with extreme racism mean the writer is racist? or does it mean the writer wants to bring attention to churchill being racist? (i want to make a new adage, for "how long until someone brings up churchill" instead of y'know the classic one.)

Has nothing to do with anything stated in the conversation.

Orwell portraying the USSR as a pile of lying pigs sitting on top of incredibly dumb animals who can't learn past literally A,B,C, and D (orwell was a fucking liar, fyi) doesn't mean Orwell agrees with the pigs, he's yelling at his strawman.

in this case, does the writer writing root (a character portrayed as weird, eccentric, and slightly bricked in the head at almost every point in the fucking novel, whose very introduction even here is literally a pile of red flags and batshit insanity) like this mean the writer agrees with root, or does he want to bring attention to yet another way that root is weird?

Irrelevant because it has nothing to do with root.

like, no, not every character will agree with the author, the author will not necessarily agree with every character. Don Quixote isn't the author explaining that windmills are fucking evil, the author is laughing at people he sees as quixote-like.

Still missing the point.

You talk about "meta" and "non-meta," and try to use these words to mask your complete lack of understanding of how people write characters.

"How people write characters"??? Meta has nothing to do with the characters, it refers to the author. Meta, in and of itself, refers to context outside the story. It literally has nothing to do with the characters.

Because you write characters with fallibility, with mistakes, with biases, with their own viewpoint. You don't need to make 10 copies of yourself (you can, if that's the point, but that's actually pretty rare), you make 10 roughly rational entities with their own circumstances and say "well given their circumstances, their knowledge, their premises, where would they go?" In any piece where the author intends to criticize, your "meta" analysis falls wholly flat.

"Meta analysis"? I said the author made his MC a textbook sociopath and that it was ok because he's MC so it's hot. That's not a Meta Analysis, that's me poking fun at the author unintentionally doing something with his characters. Where do you people get this stuff? Lol

 

[Hitspark]

"fumbles information into trying to make a positive"

this is exactly the problem, the author is writing a circumstance where such a warped view would form. Your meta "joke" is only a joke insofar as being incredibly unfunny but repeatedly defended by yourself with the very self-blindness that you accuse of others.

I dunno, those likes under the comment seem to show that at least some people found my comments at least a little humorous. And with that my goal of posting the joke was reached.

What the fuck is with weebs and media illiteracy?

Pot meet Kettle, kettle pot. What's that Pot? Oh he says you're black.

Edit:

Like, yeah. The whole point is the irony that Root and hyuman society are so fucking bricked that hyuman society would rule makoto as a sociopath (all things considered, he has pretty normal if cynical views, and his bigotry is a direct response to hyuman bigotry, and he's a fucking prude. Yes, people of a different culture will tend to ditch the "social norms and laws" of a culture they cannot mesh with, as much as they can. This isn't fucking sociopathy, even though it may look like it. As for the other charges, spoiler spoiler mcspoiler) and Root would like him for it. It's not especially funny, that's the whole fucking point.

No the joke is that the author unintentionally gave Makoto traits that would make him a sociopath in our world, but he's in a manga so any negative traits or mental issues will be considered positives. That's called a META joke, honey.

Sorry, you're not media illiterate, you're just celebrating the fact you managed to understand the blatantly obvious point of the encounter, and pretending you've "one-upped" the author somehow despite the author literally making it obvious as fucking day in the desert. Congratulations? Still a shit "joke," with the initial formulation. ("The author is telling us..." "I don't care what the author was intending," rofl, does the author have to do an immersion break, bring in a narrator, and explicitly say "root's take isn't exactly good" for the message to get through your thick skull?)

"One upped the author"

Ah yes, the author who clearly knows I am here and is clearly reading my comments. Surely, after my witty repertoire he shall feel the shame of a thousand needles in his butt. No but seriously I have no idea what you're talking about. It was a joke, made because I wanted to make a joke, because I thought something was funny. You 2 are the only ones taking it further than that. I don't know how my comments became magnets for the eternally butthurt but I welcome it. I think I might start making snide jokes just to see how many wasps I can wring out the hive.

 

[Pallington]

They don't, you're taking it too seriously.

Has nothing to do with anything stated in the conversation.


Irrelevant because it has nothing to do with root.



Still missing the point.

"How people write characters"??? Meta has nothing to do with the characters, it refers to the author. Meta, in and of itself, refers to context outside the story. It literally has nothing to do with the characters.


"Meta analysis"? I said the author made his MC a textbook sociopath and that it was ok because he's MC so it's hot. That's not a Meta Analysis, that's me poking fun at the author unintentionally doing something with his characters. Where do you people get this stuff? Lol

"poking fun" by missing the point of the fucking story? Like, anyone can madlib anything to be bad, lmfao. Replace "nazi" with "black" and an antifascist becomes KKK. Like, your "poking fun" is just reductionism + madlibbing, the MC is still seen as "massive hazard, avoid if possible, play nice if not" by 90% of the people who know anything about MC, just that the exceptions are loud because of more or less survivorship bias, it's not "it's hot," but rather the crazy mofos who find it hot are drawn to the MC. MC isn't even that fucking sociopathic all things considered but that's an aside.

 

[Pallington]

I dunno, those likes under the comment seem to show that at least some people found my comments at least a little humorous. And with that my goal of posting the joke was reached.



Pot meet Kettle, kettle pot. What's that Pot? Oh he says you're black.

No the joke is that the author unintentionally gave Makoto traits that would make him a sociopath in our world, but he's in a manga so any negative traits or mental issues will be considered positives. That's called a META joke, honey.


"One upped the author"

Ah yes, the author who clearly knows I am here and is clearly reading my comments. Surely, after my witty repertoire he shall feel the shame of a thousand needles in his butt. No but seriously I have no idea what you're talking about. It was a joke, made because I wanted to make a joke, because I thought something was funny. You 2 are the only ones taking it further than that. I don't know how my comments became magnets for the eternally butthurt but I welcome it. I think I might start making snide jokes just to see how many wasps I can wring out the hive.

"so any negative traits or mental issues will be considered positives" and fucking again, let me madlib the story so it says what I want because I like cherrypicking, cherries are tasty. Yes, the author is saying that some crazy mofos will find it positive. Rembrandt, however, has already made it clear that he's basically handling a time bomb. Lime literally made it clear he's realized he's stepped into a fucking warehouse full of powder kegs.

"unintentional" "unintentionally" "butthurt" you think it's funny because you think it's not part of the author's fucking intent, hence, you "oneupped the author." Oh, and the classic "he swore so he's butthurt and angry" is popping up again.

 

[Hitspark]

"poking fun" by missing the point of the fucking story? Like, anyone can madlib anything to be bad, lmfao.

Well, yes. Part of what makes a joke funny is that it's an intentional, but clear look at something in a different manner than intended.

Replace "nazi" with "black" and an antifascist becomes KKK. Like, your "poking fun" is just reductionism + madlibbing, the MC is still seen as "massive hazard, avoid if possible, play nice if not" by 90% of the people who know anything about MC, just that the exceptions are loud because of more or less survivorship bias, it's not "it's hot," but rather the crazy mofos who find it hot are drawn to the MC. MC isn't even that fucking sociopathic all things considered but that's an aside.

How did you get all of this out of a "Pot calling kettle black" pun? Your ability to write novels over the most inconsequential statements continues to amaze me, sir. Keep it going.

 

[Hitspark]

"so any negative traits or mental issues will be considered positives" and fucking again, let me madlib the story so it says what I want because I like cherrypicking, cherries are tasty.

So angry, are those cherries good for your blood pressure?

"unintentional" "unintentionally" "butthurt" you think it's funny because you think it's not part of the author's fucking intent, hence, you "oneupped the author."

I think it's funny because I made a joke and you're writing novels trying to deconstruct some idology that doesn't exist...lol