Oooooh no. I'm talking about stuff way more terrible than that. Like...Angel Cop. Kimera. Battle Royale High School.

(Okay, Genocyber is a bit much even for me.)

The stuff is pure unadulterated garbage. But I remember the feeling when I was a kid that it was somehow...illicit. Mature. Forbidden. Of course, if I try to…

To really get that light novel adaptation feel, though, you need an improbably long title.

Maybe something like

Despite my expectations, the beautiful space princess is actually my twin sister?!

Oh my god that's depressingly perfect.

I understand.

I actually have kind of a weird fondness for really shitty 90s anime. I'm talking about the stuff that ADV would advertise in their little promo trailers before episodes of Evangelion. You know, the ridiculously, almost pornographically violent, grim, over-the-top bleak stuff.

It's part of the reason I…

I don't. It was a joke. I've liked some stuff from the past year or two (with a few standouts, like PSYCHO-PASS).

That doesn't change the fact that there's a disheartening number of moe bullshit/siscon/brocon/etc. shows pandering to the same shrinking, aging group.

(I mean, hell, we even got it in the second arc of…

Despite the utter hack job that Macek did on Macross/Southern Cross/Mospeada, I will forever have a soft spot for Robotech.

(And to a lesser extent, "Ronin Warriors" and the like, even though I recognize it was pretty terrible.)

Of course, if Star Wars were made as anime now, we'd get an ecchi comedy series focused entirely on Luke dealing with his "complex feelings" for his sister.

For what it's worth, I didn't think you were defending Penny Arcade (or, well, Mike specifically).

I've just seen that quote thrown around so many times in the context of talking about people being genuinely bothered by something asinine someone said that I have a...well, a fairly strong reaction to it.

The fact that you just used the word "weakling" unironically is pretty hilarious.

I don't know if I'd call his apology "wholehearted"; it still contained some pretty screwed-up stuff.

But yes, he did make an effort. And yes, there's a difference between ignorance and malice. The result of the two, however, is often the same.

You know that "sufficiently advanced technology" saying? I've often seen a…

Wow, really? Sorry I came across that way.

(What was that about, anyway? I mean, I remember the interaction, but not the subject of it.)

Hah, wow. Thank you. I honestly appreciate that.

Many of those "highly offended social justice warriors" were, y'know, actual trans people. And not all of them lashed out at him; some calmly asked him to stop. He did not.

And his "apology" to Sophie Prell was like...2/3 fine, 1/3 awful. It's that 1/3 that really bothers people.

With all due respect to Louis C.K., that's stupid.

You certainly don't have a right not to be offended. If you are offended, though, you have every right to let it be known, to criticize the person responsible, etc.

That's how "free speech" works. "Free speech" is not code for "I say whatever the fuck I want, and you…

Which is exactly my point. The way "self-censorship" is being used here, any attempt to not be a raging, frothing-at-the-mouth asshole bigot would qualify.

That's admirable (and I mean that sincerely, not as some sort of back-handed snide remark).

But you have to understand that things affect people differently. In the above example (about trans people), this is something that affects your hypothetical trans person 24/7. They are at dramatically increased risk of violence…

See, that's fairly reasonable. The death threats (as self-evidently unacceptable as they are) certainly exacerbated things. That doesn't EXCUSE his response to people who were utterly blameless, but it does offer some context.

The thing is, then he KEPT pushing. And kept pushing. And kept pushing. It seems like his…

...yeah you do? I mean, I haven't seen ANYONE defending those or saying that's okay. You are arguing against something that LITERALLY NO ONE is arguing in favor of.

(And of course, the people criticizing him were ALSO met with death/rape threats by Mike's supporters.)

So, if we both agree THOSE people are huge assholes…

Okay. In what way do you think it went "beyond criticism"?

(Note: I'm not counting any death threats here, because those are so self-evidently vile and unacceptable that I think it goes without saying.)

No, you're using words I said in a completely different context. You're the one making (provably wrong) assertions like "Words can only affect your thinking if you let them".

But remember what I said about not doing the whole bullshit semantic argument thing? Yeah. I think I'm gonna stick to that.