Should shock sites still exist?

When I was a kid during the 2000's you had to go to special sites to watch Russians getting killed.

Now literally any twitter account has more gore than there was in all of the 2000's internet.

It's not for everyone to handle. It definitely gives you a different perspective of reality. But you shouldn't get dehumanized by the atrocities and random brutality of human life. It's not good for mental health. It will sap out for positivity and motivation to move forward in life. Plus there's an off chance some susceptible easily influenced viewers sensitive to it could get radicalized.
There are plenty still around, I know one. I will not mention it. Just the mainstream ones are shut down now. I don't really watch them anymore. It was just curiosity when i was younger.
Even in gore, there are some I can't bare to watch or hear at all. The most brutal ones involve animals and screams of people on fire. I cannot bare to watch those. I got a really bad night terror episode from one. The screams of people on fire, in any fictional media is really, really fake. Super fake. Each and every single one of them. The real screams of someone on fire are gut wrenching

I don't think they're important to me. The mental exhaustion and emotional toll from watching these clips doesn't garner any semblance of self-development in me. I believe everyone already has a well-enough understanding of reality without having to watch gore videos, from, well, history. And to be quite frank, it's pretty annoying if it's ever brought up in a public space.

I'm kind of surprised by 1 part of that letter:


It seems she wasn't aware of the ambiguity there, because it reads like something a rapist would say to legitimate his misdeed, by claiming that everyone is entitled to have sex. Obviously she didn't mean it that way, it's just surprising and she didn't notice how misunderstandable that is.

It is only "misunderstandable" if you read it out of context, which is all the more reason to understand within the context instead of taking it out of context. There is no ambiguity, which implies a lack of sufficient context, which is the rest of the letter. You cannot simply take things out of their context and claim ambiguity.

This is akin to seriously critiquing, say, Jojo's Bizarre Adventure based on out of context moment videos on Youtube. Not that it does not have its moments, but anything can be funny or alarming if you do not have the context of why Josuke is punched a hole through mom. I think it is awfully silly to not read things in their context.

In the context of her being SAed, this is her stating that she has the right to say no or yes. Hence the full quote.



It uses the power of alliteration to further enunciate the point that as a human being, she has the right to have or not have sex. This should be perfectly obvious, and asking for disclaimers is kind of dumb.

@PeripheralVision Sure it's obvious within the general context and I already said that, but the way she phrased that part is still so ambiguous that I actually stopped reading and thought "no way, did she really just write it that way" and she obviously didn't notice, which surprised me given that she was assaulted by a man who thought he has that right.

It is not ambiguous because of the context being present; there is a clear difference between my mother saying in a slightly exasperated tone "Maybe I ought to knock you upside your head" and a stranger in a bar repeating that same line to me in an angry tone. There are some things my significant other can say to me that I would not want to hear from my boss, and vice versa. The intended meaning changes with the context.

Tangential Rant:

The alliteration aspect is important here because I am highlighting how language works. If we redo this sentence to include your little disclaimer.



The alliteration does not work as well if there are significant difference in the length of sentences, but the alliteration is present in order to present greater emotional impact. To me, it is just dumb to be so insistent on excoriating her that was never meant to be understood outside of its context in the first place. To me, this is such a pointless criticism that is better avoided in the first place lest you came across as ill-intentioned.

What? How is merely being surprised and pointing it out equal to excoriate and criticize? Besides, I reckon if she actually noticed it herself, she probably would have rephrased that part, so pointing out a little mishap the author herself would probably change, doesn't seem like something that should be avoided.

@Zarutaku

I mean, you do consider this enough of an issue to point out and have this discussion in the first place, which I consider pointless because there is no ambiguity unless you remove the context, which you should not be doing in the first place. So it is all quite silly on the same level of Cinemasins.

Again, ambiguity does not mean separating it from a context.

I suppose my best argument here is this. Male, men, guy, gent, and dude are synonyms in that they can mean the same thing, but that does not mean that they are necessarily interchangeable in their usage. How words function within sentences and entire stories is the basis for word choice. You cannot replace man with dude and not have the entire sentence take on a more irreverent tone, and this idea can be applied to entire sentences.

Different sentences can of course have the same meaning but are not functionally interchangeable, hence why song lyrics are written the way that they are. Hence why my earlier example with the disclaimer does not work. Alliteration requires that degree of succession, if you can understand that.

The same sentence can also have different meanings based on the surrounding context. Hearing one sibling say to the other "I will kill you" hits differently between two 6 year old siblings than between two adult siblings who are pointing guns to one another. Characters repeating verbatim earlier lines in a different context is after all a classic television trope.

"As a human being, I have the right to have sex if I want to" can have different meanings and thus not truly be interchangeable in a way that keeps it intended messaging. To act if there is ambiguity is to lack reading comprehension, which here is the fault of the reader, not of the original work.

@PeripheralVision Alright, it doesn't seem like something that's worth to argue over anyway, I just felt like mentioning it.

@Zarutaku That's a pretty warped perspective that you're trying to foreground. Feel less.

Uh, I just let the minor quarrel end and you try to incite it again with some subtle mockery? No thanks.