NicoZor's Topics (68)

Moscareto is the writer of quite a lot of awesome works including this,
1) Punch Drunk Love,
2) Love of Cloud and Rain,
3) Miss you,Lucifer
,etc. You should read their other works. Honestly, chef's kiss

Are they a novel writer or an artist of those story too?

From what I know she's just the author(I think). Most of their works are done by the artist Okdong

They r fck buddies. Baek used to love him.

The asshole probably manipulated him into having sex again.

Here goes my joy, shit I hate that

That "again" broke my heart

Sybau racist incel

Bitches be mad over bullshit, got a liquid spine and whimper about racism as if their life is on the line

People lives are on the line because of racism you dumb bitch.

Here comes the madding whore. Yeah I'm sure people's life were on the line over a fucking "I'm your humble slave", so many deaths too. This fucking virtue signaling performance is disgusting, you people crave for others to be racist towards you so that you can have your little time of protagonism, while ignoring the very real causes and problematics of real racism, not twisting your pants over a bl

Womp womp

What’s disgusting is you being so uptight over a racist manga not being released because you’re a lonely racist Incel. People like you are the reason why America has a racist fascist for a president . Are you 12 ? Is that you’re so ignorant and uneducated that you Dont know how propaganda works? Do you know not know basic history ? Maybe you should read less Yaoi and pick up a history book and work on your ignorance. You’re embarrassing yourself

Or maybe, just maybe something that your peanut rotten brain can't conceive is that you people are being extremist at worst and cherry picking what to be so pressed about at best. A statement like I'm your humble slave is not something to condemn a whole story over, if it triggered you so much then there is a fair chance of mentally ill sensitivity right there. People should focus more on real actual racist problems or problems in general instead of search hunting what to be actively offended about

No you’re definitely the rotten one. You not being able to comprehend why a racist story like this should not be written as a kink is a You problem that you need to work on. Or don’t . disgusting stupid people like you will always exist . You’re a stupid racist piece of mindless shit :) CRY about it little bitch. The story is canceled and will never come back LMAOO

Very fucking coward for you to block me. Bark to another wall you mindless whore. You have not been able to give me one proper explanation to why this should be considered racist outside from the bandwagon opinion it got from a simple "I'm your humble slave, master". Media and artist liberty is dead. While i respect your position on finding it racist I absolutely abhor the way you people are imposing your view on others, you are like moving shadows of fascism. Now, off you go get the fuck off my back

Nicozor, you keep saying Emihue “hasn’t given you one proper explanation” while conveniently ignoring the explanation she literally gave you. The problem is not six words existing in isolation. It’s the use of a historically racist power dynamic as part of a romantic, sexualized fantasy.

You keep dragging “I’m your humble slave” back into the conversation like you discovered some revolutionary loophole. Nobody is claiming six words caused mass casualties. That’s a ridiculous strawman you created because apparently arguing against the actual criticism requires more comprehension than you’re willing to exercise.

The historical context matters. The racial dynamics matter. The way the relationship and power imbalance are framed matters. The fact that slavery is being incorporated into a BL romantic narrative matters. You cannot just rip one sentence out of the entire context, stare at it for five seconds, and declare everyone offended by the context mentally ill.

Your response to Emihue was basically: “You are extremist. You are cherry-picking. You are mentally ill. You are fascist. You are bandwagoning.” That’s not you respecting her position. That’s you insulting her repeatedly and then pretending you’re the victim of some authoritarian censorship campaign because she disagrees with you.

And please retire this “artistic liberty is dead” melodrama. Nobody is holding a funeral for artistic liberty because people criticized a fucking manhwa. Freedom to create something does not mean freedom from criticism, and it certainly doesn’t mean everyone has to consume it without objecting to how it handles racism.

The irony is that you demand a proper explanation, but you haven’t actually disproved the explanation Emihue gave you. You’ve just repeated “it’s one sentence” approximately seventeen different ways.

If your entire defense depends on pretending the controversy was literally about six words and nothing surrounding those six words, then maybe the problem isn’t that everyone else lacks critical thinking.

Maybe you just haven’t been paying attention.

And before you throw another fascist/extremist/mentally-ill/bandwagon word salad at me, try answering the actual point for once:

Why is it acceptable to romanticize a racialized master-slave dynamic in this historical context simply because you personally don’t find the depiction offensive?

Because “artistic liberty” isn’t an answer.

“Everyone is too sensitive” isn’t an answer.

And calling people fascists isn’t an answer.

So let’s see if you actually have an argument underneath all that name-calling, Nicozor.

Iris beautifully said ! And incredibly articulate of you ! Great job ! as you stated the fact that they reduce it to that one sentence really shows their ignorance. It’s the whole story and what it’s based on that’s wrong

I will say Dont even bother with them Iris. That person has no logic . They’re an Incel who hates themselves and is not even worth an intelligent. He only understands insults so I gave them back and block them lmaoo they’re a Loser not worth hearing out. But you explained it well and they still won’t understand

What are we even doing here?
what are you talking about? The main character is literally just a Union soldier coming home from the Civil War, and the love interest is a Native American guy working on a ranch! He’s not a slave. There is no master-slave dynamic. You guys completely invent a storyline out of thin air, get yourselves so worked up over your own fanfiction that you terrorize an author off the internet, and then stand there with a straight face asking "Why do you defend this atrocity?"
And then you act like you're standing up for social justice? Come on. Let’s be real for two seconds.
The funniest (and most frustrating) part is the massive, blinding hypocrisy.
you guys consume the most depraved fucked up shit on a daily basis, and honestly? I don't even care, play what you want, read what you want, everyone knows fiction isn't real. But the second a story touches on something that makes you look bad or hits a little too close to home for USA history, you suddenly drop the act and start clutching your pearls like a bunch of innocent Victorian ladies at a church.
It is so transparent. You don't actually care about real empathy, or history, or any of that. You just can't handle a piece of media that doesn't strictly adhere to your little online purity cult rules and domestic guilt.
So no, we don't need to answer your big moral question about a master-slave dynamic because it didn't happen. You manufactured a crisis out of thin air just to justify a harassment campaign over a bl plot point that literally only exists in your own chronically online imagination.
Anyway... this is why nobody takes all of you seriously anymore.

I think you’re arguing against a position nobody actually made because you’ve reduced the entire criticism to “Ezra was literally a slave,” and then congratulated yourself for disproving it.

Nobody said Ezra was secretly enslaved and that the plot literally consisted of a white master owning a Native man. The criticism is about the imagery, framing, historical setting, and the decision to put a line invoking a master-slave dynamic into a romantic BL story set in post-Civil War America. Those things can be discussed without pretending the character’s legal status was “slave.”

And this “you guys invented a storyline out of thin air” argument is especially weak. Interpretation does not require a character to walk onto the page and give you a notarized document confirming the metaphor before people are allowed to find something uncomfortable. If a story places slavery-related language inside a specific historical racial context, people are obviously going to discuss what that framing communicates.

Also, your entire “you people consume depraved fiction, but suddenly clutch your pearls when it’s American history” argument is just a giant whataboutism. Someone can enjoy dark fiction and still criticize a particular depiction. Those things aren’t contradictory. You don’t get to decide that someone’s criticism is fake because you imagine they consume media you consider worse.

And please stop confusing criticism with censorship. People criticizing a commercial work, discussing its historical implications, refusing to support it, or telling the publisher they dislike it is not the same thing as magically “censoring” the author. The creator and publisher ultimately decided what they wanted to do with their own work.

You keep saying everyone else is “manufacturing a crisis,” but your entire rebuttal depends on manufacturing an argument nobody made: “You claim Ezra was literally an enslaved Black man and the whole plot was a master-slave relationship.”

That isn’t what I said.

That isn’t what the criticism necessarily says.

And it certainly isn’t what you need to prove in order to acknowledge why people found the imagery and historical framing disturbing.

You can personally think the backlash was excessive. You can think people interpreted the premise too negatively. You can even think the story deserved a chance to develop.

Those are actual arguments.

But “Ezra wasn’t literally a slave, therefore nobody is allowed to criticize the slave imagery” is not the intellectual knockout you seem to think it is.

And honestly, the amount of “purity cult,” “domestic guilt,” “chronically online,” and “harassment campaign” you’ve packed into one comment is impressive considering you’re accusing everyone else of being emotionally worked up.

Maybe argue against the criticism people actually made instead of inventing an exaggerated version of it and then defeating that version yourself.

Let me remind you who declared and stated, "Why is it acceptable to romanticize a racialized master-slave dynamic?" You threw the whole accusation right out of the gate. But when I answer that question and say there is no master, there is no slave, the character is literally just a free guy working on a ranch, you made this entire plot up.
Instead of saying my bad, I overreacted on that one, You choose to try to gaslight everyone with "well, actually, nobody said he was literally a slave! We were just having a sophisticated, academic discourse about the historical framing, the metaphor, the vibes!"
For days, they were running a full-blown cancel campaign, massively reporting the manga, acting like this BL was a hate crime against humanity.
And now you're telling me that all of that was just because it made them feel uncomfortable, not even anything concrete.
let's be entirely real for a second. Everyone outside your bubble sees right through this, because you guys only ever organize and care when it strokes your own fragile egos.
If media actually comes loaded with real, heavy systemic suffering or brutal historical atrocities anywhere else on earth? Crickets. You couldn't care less.
But the second a manga bl touches a little on post-Civil War and and it doesn't exactly follow the guide to your preferred racial framing, then the outrage machine goes completely ballistic. Unless it's trending on your timeline, unless you can farm some quick clout off it, or unless it gives you a fresh excuse to manufacture your own badge of moral purity. You’re not losing sleep over actual human suffering, just having a meltdown because a fictional story didn't "handle" 19th-century North American history the exact way your hyper-online, US-centric brain demands it should. You don't actually give a single damn about the issues you're pretending to protect. You just love the aesthetic of being the good guy, wanting that quick dopamine hit of screaming from your high horse. But if a topic doesn't serve your manufactured righteousness or feed your domestic guilt complex, you look right the other way. It’s completely fake. It’s a massive ego trip. Cheap activism over a fictional romance that didn't check every single one of your domestic moral boxes.
With that said thanks so much. I know my razor-sharp, painfully accurate description of your absolute bullshit stung a little bit and you had to scramble and deflect to tone-policing.

Mr woman

you’re still arguing against a version of my argument that you invented.

You keep responding to “Why is it acceptable to romanticize a racialized master-slave dynamic?” as though I said, “Ezra was literally enslaved, the white MC legally owned him, and the entire plot is about a slave falling in love with his master.”

That is not what I said.

When I referred to a racialized master-slave dynamic, I was talking about the imagery and framing created by having a character say “I’m your humble slave, Master” within a romantic BL story set in post-Civil War America. You can disagree with that interpretation. You can think the line was sarcastic. You can think the relationship was never intended to be a literal master-slave relationship.

But “Ezra is technically a free ranch worker” does not automatically invalidate criticism of the imagery.

You keep demanding that everyone admit “there was no master and no slave” as though that settles the entire discussion. It doesn’t. If a character says “I’m your slave, Master” in a romantic context, people are obviously allowed to question why that language was chosen and what it evokes in that particular historical setting.

You don’t have to agree with their interpretation. But calling the interpretation “fanfiction” doesn’t make it disappear.

And the funniest part is that you keep accusing me of “gaslighting” while you’re doing exactly what you accused me of doing: reducing the opposing argument to the most extreme version possible and then declaring victory over it.

You’ve also completely abandoned the actual argument and moved into mind-reading.

Apparently everyone who criticized the story is secretly doing it for clout, moral dopamine, domestic guilt, fragile ego, or some desperate need to feel like the good guy. You don’t know these people. You don’t know their motives. You can’t prove that. You’re just assigning motives to people because you don’t like their criticism.

And the “you people consume depraved fiction” argument is still irrelevant.

People are allowed to consume fucked-up fiction and criticize other fucked-up fiction. Someone liking dark romance, horror, taboo fiction, or whatever else does not mean they lose the ability to object to a particular historical depiction. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s literally how having individual opinions works.

Also, this whole “if it were suffering anywhere else in the world, you would be silent” argument is just an assumption you’ve invented. You have no idea what anyone in that comment section cares about outside this particular discussion. You’re taking one conversation about one manhwa and pretending you’ve conducted a psychological study on everyone involved.

And no, criticizing the historical framing of a work set in 19th-century America does not mean someone believes America has a “monopoly” on slavery or suffering. That’s another argument you keep dragging in because it sounds impressive but doesn’t actually address the point.

You can believe the backlash was excessive.

You can believe the author deserved a chance to continue the story.

You can believe the line was being interpreted too literally.

You can even believe the cancellation was ridiculous.

Those are all arguments I can actually engage with.

But “everyone who criticized it is a fake activist with a guilt complex” is not a rebuttal. It’s just an insult dressed up as analysis.

And you keep saying people “terrorized an author off the internet,” but unless you can actually demonstrate what happened, you’re presenting your own version of the backlash as established fact. Criticism, negative reception, reporting something, boycotting it, or contacting a publisher isn’t automatically harassment just because you dislike the outcome.

Most importantly, you keep acting as though acknowledging that something is uncomfortable means demanding that it be banned.

It doesn’t.

Something can be legal to create, legal to publish, fictional, and still be criticized for its themes, imagery, historical framing, or implications.

That’s not censorship. That’s criticism.

So if your actual argument is simply:

“Ezra wasn’t literally enslaved, the line was not meant literally, and therefore people exaggerated the situation,”

then say that.

That’s a real argument.

But everything after that—“purity cult,” “domestic guilt,” “fragile egos,” “moral dopamine,” “fake activism,” “chronically online,” “clout”—is just you speculating about people’s motives because you haven’t actually disproved the criticism itself.

You don’t have to like the criticism.

You just need to stop pretending that disagreeing with an interpretation somehow proves the interpretation was invented out of thin air.

Ah, perfect. the entire initial outcry was based on a subjective assumption about how a phrase taken out of context made you feel.
If your "criticism" boils down entirely to your own personal interpretation of a literary atmosphere, then have the decency to treat it for what it is, just a preference or discomfort of yours, and it sure as hell wasn't a license to launch a mass reporting, targeted harassment campaign to burn an author's work to the ground.
To pretend that your manufactured moral superiority and desperate need for validation must be treated as objective truths that everyone else must conform to through targeted pile-ons is just unbearable arrogance.
you guys whining about "mind-reading" and "speculating on motives" is unmatched. You are scanning fiction hunting for microaggressions, secret dog whistles, hidden psychological patterns and analyzing background characters to form speculations and tear creators down, but if someone points out that your entire crusade is driven by performative outrage and a desperate need for moral high-ground dopamine, it is "Stop analyzing my motives! That's speculation!"
For this people it isn't even baseless speculation, it's the single most predictable, easiest pattern to recognize on the entire internet.
Also "insulting" your fake hypocritical ass doesn't invalidate the point, it's a direct counter argument exposing the fact that your entire outrage is just baseless manufacture ego-driven performance. There's no real necessity to pretend you're out here stopping real human rights violations over a fictional manga while actively censoring creative freedom.
And honestly, there’s still a mountain of absolute BS left in your wall of text that you brought up. If you actually want me to refute every single one of those points, let’s do it point-by-point, because right now you're just rambling aimlessly and talking absolute nonsense all over the place.

Sure. Let’s do it point-by-point, because your latest reply actually makes the problem with your argument even clearer.

First, you keep saying the criticism was “entirely based on a subjective assumption” and therefore should be dismissed as nothing more than personal discomfort. That does not follow.

Of course an interpretation is subjective. That is literally how literary criticism works. The fact that people can interpret imagery, dialogue, historical context, and framing differently does not make every interpretation “baseless manufacture.” You can disagree with an interpretation without pretending the interpretation has no basis.

And notice something: I have already acknowledged that you can believe the line was sarcastic, that Ezra was never literally enslaved, that there was no literal master-slave relationship, and that the backlash was excessive. I have never claimed my interpretation is some objective law that everyone must conform to.

So why do you keep arguing as though I demanded that everyone accept my interpretation as fact?

Second, you keep repeating “mass reporting” and “targeted harassment campaign” as though you have established that those things happened and that everyone criticizing the manhwa participated in them.

You haven’t.

If specific people harassed the author, then condemn those people. If people mass-reported the work maliciously, then condemn that behavior too. I have no problem with that.

But you cannot take the worst behavior allegedly committed by some people and attach it to every person who criticized the manhwa. Criticism ≠ harassment.

And this is exactly why your censorship argument keeps falling apart.

If I say, “I think this historical framing is disturbing,” I have not censored anyone.

If I say, “I don’t want to read or support this,” I have not censored anyone.

If I explain why I think a publisher should reconsider the work, I have expressed an opinion.

If someone threatens or harasses an author, that’s different. Condemn it.

Those things are not interchangeable just because you dislike the criticism.

Third, you keep accusing me of demanding that everyone “conform” to my moral interpretation. Again, where?

You are literally arguing with someone who has repeatedly told you that you are free to disagree.

I said you can think the line was sarcastic.

I said you can think the relationship was never intended to be a literal master-slave relationship.

I said you can think the backlash was excessive.

I said you can even think the story deserved a chance to develop.

Those are not the words of someone demanding ideological conformity.

What I am saying is that if a creator puts slavery-related language into a romantic story set against a very specific historical period, people are allowed to discuss what that choice evokes and whether they think it was handled poorly.

You are allowed to say, “I think that interpretation is unfair.”

That is an actual disagreement.

But “your interpretation exists, therefore you’re censoring creative freedom” is not an argument.

Fourth, your “you guys scan fiction for microaggressions and hidden dog whistles” point is another enormous generalization.

You don’t know why every individual person criticized the story.

You don’t know what every person reads.

You don’t know what every person cares about.

You don’t know whether every person involved was trying to get the work cancelled.

Yet somehow you are completely certain that they are all motivated by clout, moral dopamine, fragile egos, domestic guilt, and performative activism.

And then you object when I point out that you’re speculating about people’s motives.

That’s not hypocrisy on my part. There is a very obvious difference between saying, “This framing can reasonably be interpreted this way,” and saying, “Every person who disliked it secretly did so because they wanted internet validation.”

The first is an interpretation of a piece of media.

The second is a claim about thousands of strangers’ private motivations.

If you’re going to accuse me of mind-reading, you don’t get to do an entire psychological profile of everyone who disagrees with you and then call it “the easiest pattern to recognize on the internet.”

Fifth, you keep calling this “censoring creative freedom.”

Again: where did I say the author should be legally prohibited from creating it?

I didn’t.

The author had the freedom to create it. People had the freedom to criticize it. The publisher had the freedom to decide whether to continue publishing it.

Those freedoms can coexist.

You seem to be treating the existence of negative consequences or public criticism as proof that censorship occurred. But creators being criticized for their work is not the same thing as the government banning their work or someone legally preventing them from creating it.

If your argument is actually that the backlash was disproportionate and unfair, then say that.

I can debate that.

If your argument is that people interpreted the line too literally, say that.

I can debate that too.

If your argument is that the story should have been given more than one chapter before people judged its direction, that’s also a legitimate argument.

But “people criticized it, therefore creative freedom was censored” is still a category error.

And finally, you said there’s “a mountain” of BS left and that you can refute every point.

Perfect.

Then let’s actually do that instead of another paragraph about my supposed ego, guilt complex, moral dopamine, purity cult, or desperate need for validation.

Pick the first point you think I got wrong and explain specifically why.

Not what you think my motives were.

Not what you think “you people” secretly believe.

Not what some other people allegedly did.

The actual point.

Because I’m perfectly happy to go point-by-point. Let’s see whether your argument survives once we stop talking about everyone else’s supposed psychology and start addressing the claims themselves.

First of all, you built that entire text around yourself when nobody is even talking about you as an individual. We’re over here talking about an actual mob of troglodytes who ran a cancellation campaign. Yeah, you can generalize about a mob, that's literally what a mob is. Have you ever seen how these people operate? And if it feels like a personal attack, that's just collateral damage. Maybe don't volunteer to be the main defense attorney and spokesperson for a harassment campaign.
Let's just pull up the definitions real quick, since we apparently forgot how this works:
Censorship: Coordinated pressure to force content off the internet while pretending you're morally superior.
Cancellation: An organized boycott designed to silence anyone who disagrees with you and scare everyone else into staying quiet.
Digital lynching: A massive, coordinated pile-on whose entire goal is destroying someone's reputation, not exchanging ideas, dressed up in fake intellectual garbage.
Nobody cares about your ego. Nobody cares about your self-satisfied worldview. The whole point is to defenestrate and call out the mob and how they operate.
So look, if you want to sit there playing semantics with "literary interpretations" that basically manufactured the excuse for the whole cancellation, go ahead. But if the actual real-world result of that narrative was straight-up censorship, then you have to stomach the reality of the ideological garbage you're endorsing, instead of distorting it when people point out the disaster you are helping to provoke and perpetuate.

this is actually much easier to address now because you’ve finally separated your argument into claims instead of just throwing “purity cult,” “moral dopamine,” and “domestic guilt” at me.

First, you say I “built the entire text around myself.” No. I addressed your argument because you were replying directly to me. Obviously I’m going to clarify what I actually said when you repeatedly attribute positions to me that I never made.

But more importantly, you’ve now changed the argument.

Originally, your position was essentially: “There was no slave, Ezra wasn’t enslaved, therefore the criticism is completely manufactured.”

Now you’re saying: “Fine, the criticism was subjective, but that subjective criticism caused a cancellation campaign.”

Those are two separate claims.

And I’m perfectly capable of agreeing that if people genuinely harassed an author, threatened them, or coordinated maliciously to destroy them, that’s wrong.

What I am not going to do is accept your assumption that EVERYONE who criticized the work was part of that behavior simply because you dislike the criticism.

Now let’s address your definitions, because this is where you’re really stretching things.

“Censorship: coordinated pressure to force content off the internet.”

That is not some universally accepted definition of censorship. Censorship generally refers to the suppression, restriction, or prohibition of expression or information, particularly by an authority or institution. Public criticism, boycotts, petitions, or people telling a publisher they dislike something can potentially contribute to a work being discontinued, but that does not automatically make every instance of public pressure “censorship.”

And “cancellation” does not simply mean “an organized boycott designed to silence anyone who disagrees with you.” Boycotting a product is refusing to support it. Criticizing a creator is criticism. Harassing someone is harassment. Censorship is censorship.

You are collapsing four different things into one word because it makes your argument sound much more dramatic.

If your claim is that there was a coordinated campaign specifically intended to prevent the creator from publishing the work, then establish that.

Who organized it?

What exactly did they coordinate?

What evidence shows that the purpose was to “silence anyone who disagrees”?

What evidence shows that everyone criticizing the work participated in it?

Because you keep presenting “a mob” as though it’s a documented, unified organization with one motive, when you’re actually talking about a collection of people on the internet who may have had completely different reactions and motives.

And “if it feels like a personal attack, that’s collateral damage” is not the defense you think it is.

If you’re criticizing a specific group of people who engaged in harassment, then criticize those people.

But if your method of doing that is repeatedly calling everyone who objects to the manhwa a troglodyte, hypocrite, fake activist, purity cultist, morally superior attention seeker, and whatever else you’ve thrown out, then don’t suddenly pretend you’re above generalization because you put the word “mob” in front of it.

Now, your biggest claim is that the criticism was merely “a subjective assumption about how a phrase made you feel.”

That’s also an oversimplification.

I never said, “I personally feel uncomfortable, therefore everyone must agree with me.”

The criticism concerns the combination of the dialogue, the romantic framing, and the historical setting. You can disagree with that interpretation. You can argue the line was sarcastic. You can argue the story wasn’t intending a master-slave relationship. You can argue people should have waited for more chapters.

Those are all legitimate disagreements.

But saying “it’s subjective” does not magically make the criticism baseless.

Literary interpretation is subjective. Historical interpretation can involve disagreement. That doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to explain WHY they interpret something a certain way.

And this is where your argument keeps contradicting itself.

You say we’re supposedly “manufacturing” meaning that isn’t there.

But then you spend an enormous amount of time arguing about what the story DOES mean and what the critics SHOULD have interpreted it as.

So clearly interpretation matters to you too.

You simply want your interpretation to be treated as the neutral one and everyone else’s as “fanfiction.”

And no, saying that the imagery evokes a particular historical power dynamic isn’t the same thing as claiming Ezra was literally enslaved.

You have repeatedly insisted that those are the only two possibilities:

Either Ezra was legally enslaved and there was literally a master-slave relationship,

OR

nobody is allowed to discuss slavery-related imagery at all.

That’s a false dichotomy.

A fictional character can be free while dialogue still deliberately or accidentally evokes slavery. A romantic story can contain imagery that readers find historically inappropriate without the characters literally reenacting the institution of slavery.

You don’t have to agree that the imagery was effective or offensive.

But you cannot make the existence of an interpretation disappear simply by declaring it “manufactured.”

And finally, your “actual real-world result” argument doesn’t prove what you think it proves.

If the creator voluntarily discontinued the work after criticism, that does not automatically establish that the critics “censored” them.

A creator can respond to criticism however they choose. A publisher can decide not to continue a project. Audiences can stop supporting it. People can criticize the decision.

Those are all part of how public/commercial media works.

If you can demonstrate that people threatened the author, doxxed them, stalked them, or otherwise harassed them, then condemn THAT. I will agree with you.

But you cannot take alleged harassment by some people and retroactively redefine every criticism of the work as harassment.

And you certainly can’t use the existence of backlash as proof that the original criticism was illegitimate.

So let’s actually do what you suggested.

If you have evidence that there was a coordinated harassment campaign specifically designed to destroy the author’s reputation, show it.

If you have evidence that the people criticizing the historical framing were the same people organizing that harassment, show it.

If you have evidence that the objective was to “silence anyone who disagreed,” show it.

Because right now, you’re treating those conclusions as established facts while simultaneously accusing everyone else of “manufacturing” things that aren’t there.

And if you want to argue that the backlash was excessive, disproportionate, or unfair?

Fine.

That’s a position I can actually debate.

But “people criticized a fictional work and the work was subsequently discontinued, therefore censorship occurred” is not enough to establish censorship.

That’s the part you’re still not proving.

...wait, I’m genuinely thrown off by this, how on earth did you reach these conclusions?
"Originally, your position was essentially: “There was no slave, Ezra wasn’t enslaved, therefore the criticism is completely manufactured.”
Now you’re saying: “Fine, the criticism was subjective, but that subjective criticism caused a cancellation campaign.” "
Pointing out that there is no slave and Ezra isn’t enslaved wasn't some "ideological stance" or "position", just the objective reality of the text. I was literally just answering the exact question you threw at first: “Why is it acceptable to romanticize a racialized master-slave dynamic in this historical context?”.
If you later want to insist that those words don't mean what they plainly say, and that we have to pretend your brain isn't melting out of your ears while you bend those words to fit the narrative you want... fine, I guess.
And as for the second part, I have no idea how you managed to correlate those two things, especially since I was the one who pointed out from the start that your "criticism" was nothing more than a subjective assumption and a collective delusion shared by you and, coincidentally, the psychos completely lacking reading comprehension and emotional maturity, whose brains couldn't tell the difference between a basic dramatic device and reality, which is what actually ended up screwing over the author and the work because all of their actions were ultimately based on complete bullshit.

I think you’re getting hung up on one distinction that I’ve already acknowledged: yes, Ezra is not literally enslaved. Nobody is disputing the objective status of the character anymore.

But you’re making a logical leap from “Ezra is not literally a slave” to “therefore criticism of the slavery-related imagery is objectively baseless.” Those are not the same claim.

When I asked why it was acceptable to romanticize a racialized master-slave dynamic, I was referring to the imagery and framing created by the dialogue “I’m your humble slave, Master” within a romantic BL story set in post-Civil War America. I was not claiming that Ezra’s legal status was literally “enslaved.”

You keep saying I’m “bending the words” to mean something they don’t mean, but I’m actually being very explicit about what I mean. You’re the one insisting that there are only two possible interpretations:

1. Ezra is literally enslaved and the story is literally about a master and slave, or
2. the criticism is completely imaginary.

That’s the false equivalence I’ve been pointing out this entire time.

A fictional character can be free while a piece of dialogue still evokes a historical power structure. People can then debate whether that association is fair, intentional, excessive, or completely misguided.

You don’t have to agree with the interpretation.

But disagreement with an interpretation doesn’t prove that the interpretation is a “collective delusion.”

And this is where your argument keeps becoming self-defeating.

You say my criticism is merely subjective, yet you keep making objective claims about the motives of everyone who criticized it.

Apparently they’re “psychos,” they lack reading comprehension, they’re emotionally immature, they’re driven by moral superiority, they’re seeking dopamine, they’re performative activists, they’re hypocrites, and they’re part of a mob.

How exactly did you establish all of that from the text?

You complain that I’m “mind-reading” while repeatedly doing precisely that to an entire group of strangers.

The difference is that I’m discussing what the work can reasonably evoke based on its dialogue, setting, genre, and historical context.

You’re claiming to know what’s happening inside the heads of everyone who objected to it.

Those are not remotely the same thing.

And your argument that their actions were “ultimately based on complete bullshit” still doesn’t follow from the fact that you disagree with their interpretation.

You have established one thing: Ezra wasn’t literally enslaved.

You have NOT established that nobody was reasonably entitled to find the imagery disturbing.

You have NOT established that everyone who criticized the work misunderstood the text.

You have NOT established that everyone involved was part of a coordinated harassment campaign.

And you have NOT established that every person who criticized the work was motivated by some collective desire for moral validation.

Those are additional claims, and you’re simply treating them as proven.

If you want to argue that the backlash was excessive because people interpreted the line too literally, that’s a perfectly understandable position.

If you want to argue that the line was obviously sarcastic and shouldn’t have been read as romanticizing anything, argue that.

If you want to argue that judging a series from its first chapter was unfair, argue that.

If you want to argue that people harassed the creator and that behavior was unacceptable, I agree with you.

But “Ezra isn’t literally a slave, therefore the historical imagery cannot be criticized” is still not a valid conclusion.

And honestly, I think this is the part you’re refusing to acknowledge: something can be objectively fictional and still be open to subjective interpretation.

That’s not me “pretending words don’t mean what they plainly say.”

That’s literally how interpretation works.

You see the line and conclude, “It’s obviously just a dramatic device.”

Someone else sees the same line, the historical setting, the romantic context, and concludes, “That is an uncomfortable use of slavery-related imagery.”

Neither interpretation becomes objectively impossible simply because you prefer yours.


You can argue that their interpretation is wrong.

You haven’t demonstrated that they’re incapable of having one.

What the hell are you even talking about? You are the one keeping this loop alive by whining over and over that we pointed out he's not literally a slave. We got it the first time, and that's precisely why we called it out from the start. That's literally it, it doesn't imply anything other than the fact that your question was flawed. All the semantics and delusions you're spinning now just to justify the cancellation are a completely different story.
It is not "therefore... whatever invention you want to pull out of your ass this time." It was "therefore" you deliberately framed a loaded, bad-faith question using heavy semantics, assuming off the bat that a "racialized master-slave dynamic" was an objective fact in the story.
Maybe next time you shouldn't try to overdramatize and frame it as glorifying systemic racism if all you actually meant to say was that the line made you feel a little uncomfortable given the historical setting.
And btw, are you even reading what you're posting? "You complain that I’m "mind-reading"... What? That was you lol
Also, I can size up these sons of bitches however I damn well please, based on the nasty pack mentality they display. Who cares? Are you seriously trying to police how I express my contempt and disdain too?
And that’s as far as I got, because I’m increasingly convinced that I’m only responding so that a defective bot with a script can answer me.

okay, I’ll concede one thing: my original wording was too categorical. Saying “why is it acceptable to romanticize a racialized master-slave dynamic” presented that interpretation as an established fact when I should have said something closer to “why is it acceptable to use master-slave/slavery-related imagery in this historical and romantic context?”

That’s a fair criticism of my wording.

But you’re still treating that concession as though it destroys the entire criticism, and it doesn’t.

You keep saying the criticism was based on a “collective delusion” because Ezra wasn’t literally enslaved. But that’s still not what I’ve been arguing. The literal status of the character answers one question: whether Ezra was actually a slave. It does not automatically answer the separate question of whether the line “I’m your humble slave, Master,” used in a romantic BL story set in that particular historical context, was an appropriate or inappropriate creative choice.

You can think the answer is “yes, it was completely harmless.”

Someone else can think, “That is an uncomfortable use of slavery-related imagery.”

Someone else can think, “It’s obviously sarcastic and the backlash is ridiculous.”

Those are competing interpretations. The existence of competing interpretations doesn’t make one side a “collective delusion.”

And I think you’re also quietly changing the standard you’re demanding from me.

You started with “Ezra isn’t literally a slave.”

Fine. I’ve acknowledged that.

Then it became “therefore your criticism is manufactured.”

Now it’s “your original question was loaded and bad faith.”

Okay. I’ve acknowledged that the wording was too categorical.

But none of those things actually demonstrates that the underlying criticism of the imagery and historical framing was baseless.

You still have to make that argument.

As for the alleged mass reporting and harassment: if specific people actually harassed the creator, I have already said that I condemn it. But you keep treating the existence and motives of every person involved in the backlash as something you can establish simply by calling them psychos with a pack mentality.

You can express whatever contempt you want. I’m not trying to police your language.

But your freedom to insult people doesn’t magically turn your assumptions about their motives into evidence.

And yes, you are absolutely free to believe their criticism was stupid, excessive, performative, or completely wrong. That’s an actual position.

What you haven’t demonstrated is that because the criticism was subjective, it was therefore illegitimate, or that everyone who participated in the backlash shared the same motives.

That’s the part I keep challenging.

And the “defective bot” comment doesn’t really add anything to your argument. If you don’t want to continue, that’s obviously your choice. But if you’re going to continue offering to go point-by-point, then let’s actually stay with the points rather than turning every disagreement into another diagnosis of everyone else’s intelligence, motives, or mental state.

So yes: I’ll own the overly categorical wording in my original question.

Now you can own the much larger leap you’re making when you go from “your wording assumed an interpretation” to “therefore the entire criticism was delusional and everyone involved acted in bad faith.”
Those are not the same conclusion.

... Okay, maybe saying that everyone acted in bad faith and is completely delusional is a bit of a generalization, right?
The accurate thing to say in this case is that YOU exaggerated, are delusional, and acted in bad faith by twisting the narrative.
Look, if the entire foundation of your "criticism" (the supposed "weakest link in the pack") starts by distorting the plot and painting the worst possible scenario based on a lie, then my conclusion isn't some crazy leap in logic! just the inevitable consequence. My logic stems directly from how this whole manufactured scandal was built, yours just clings to desperate semantic distortion.
I’m not changing lanes here, I’m just following the straight line of your own facts. Those aren't separate arguments or moving standards, it’s just the natural progression of a manufactured critique. The only reason you think it's changing is because you refuse to connect the dots, and apparently lack the mental capacity to follow your own trail.
Alright you can keep your interpretive disagreements. An interpretation is fine, it stays in the realm of ideas. But collective delusion and bad faith kick in hard the second you take personal discomfort, turn it into a total false narrative, deliberately omit context, and set out on a crusade to demand an author's head (I’m not saying you specifically were the one who went out and did that final part, okay?) But at the end of the day, that whole pattern shows there is something fundamentally broken with your dogma and these zealots who are completely indoctrinated by their own ideological lobotomies.
Now trying to pass off a disproportionate boycott and an all-out harassment campaign as some kind of "elegant disagreement over historical imagery" is an absolute joke.

Look, the reality here is that they just kicked up a massive, ridiculous fuss because they desperately needed an outlet for their totally unhinged, performative self-indulgent outrage. If a single line of dialogue in a BL (which is literally just intended to evoke dramatic tension appropriate to the setting) offends your delicate sensibilities enough to justify terrorizing an author online, the problem is not the art, dude. It’s your complete, total inability to process fiction without acting like a literal mob of censors. Why must art be castrated, rather than you being confined to a neuropsychiatric ward?
Your criticism is baseless because it doesn't stem from an actual analysis of the work, but rather from a phantom constructed in your mind to justify the disproportionate, visceral reaction of an unstable psyche. A demand for ideological purity that forbids art from even touching uncomfortable contexts.
If the starting point of your "historical analysis" was literally just ideological hot air that caused nothing but discomfort... I mean, come on. There is no profound literary argument to refute there. It's just this collective contagion of feeling "outraged". You can express that as "criticism," but to take it to the absolute extreme of having an existential crisis over reading a BL manga?!
All they sought to do was pile up high-flown rhetoric and real life tragedies so that their online hysteria would sound like an unquestionable, heroic cause. They need to blow things up into a catastrophe and paint the author as a heartless monster to justify their wildly exaggerated reaction.
And I know my descriptions and imagery might sound a hyperbolic! There’s no need to overanalyze that to again, it is what it is.
Besides, there are a bunch of regurgitated minor points that I didn't think were worth bringing up, because you just latch onto the most stupid things while completely ignoring or misinterpreting the rest.

Nope, they are inactive unfortunetely

Heyy, do you know why and what happened? They used to have a discord server too. When was the last time they were active?

IT'S BEEN 4 FUCKING YEARS DUDE! WTF?? Where's has my life gone??

Wait. It does say last chapter on june 3 but it comes out now? So its not really the ending?

Incredible. 4 years have already passed, no words

Not sure mate. But I'm gonna bet on extra chapters to come out for us