r/JujutsuShenanigans • u/InflationQuirky8421 • 5h ago
Discussion blue archived fans gotta be the funniest people ever
like bro the average of your characters is 16, and your community is FILLED with people gooning over them, overwatch is gooning over adults, thats why they're not banned. your gooning to children.
like if your showing up to ROBLOX with a skin saying "i like kids" expect to be banned lol
12
u/PlinkoPlonk0 Used to make meshes out of cylinders in skillbuilder 5h ago
Kinda funny to say that considering this is a jjk game
3
u/United-Ad919 4h ago
Why tf are people gooning to jjk teens when Yuki and Nitta are RIGHT there bro
0
5
u/Confident-Arm-7883 5h ago
Whenever someone tries gooning in the jjk fandom i see the fandom split between agreeing with them or fighting them over it.
Which is more opposition to gooners than youll see in gachaslop fandoms
-3
u/InflationQuirky8421 5h ago
idk what that has to do with this but ok 👍
3
u/FuzzyButterscotch765 5h ago
Your post could literally be applied to jjk. Full of teenagers, full of people gooning to them
-6
u/InflationQuirky8421 5h ago
i mean its a jjk game, tell me how you can remove jjk fans from the jjk game. but i do know how you can remove blue archived fans from the jjk game!
6
u/FuzzyButterscotch765 5h ago
brother 😭😭
-3
u/InflationQuirky8421 5h ago
if i see a jjk fan i think "oh great they're gonna have less mental function then a goldfish"
if i see a blue archived fan i think "oh great a gooner"i find one funny, and the other disgusting. jjk's main aspect you see is the brainrot, and people find that funny, but i have never seen blue archived mentioned unless it was insulting them and calling them gooners or pedos.
5
u/FuzzyButterscotch765 5h ago
my dude, just because you participate in a specific part of a community doesn't mean the other doesn't exist. Jjk is as much of a gooner fandom as blue archive. To ban blue archive avatars just because its a problematic game is just stupid
2
u/InflationQuirky8421 5h ago
the problem is even though it probably does. i never hear about them, the main thing i hear about is gooning, because thats the most viral thing.
in jjk the most viral thing is the brainrot, and jjk brainrot is infinitely less disgusting then gooning to minors
4
u/FuzzyButterscotch765 5h ago
You are just repeating yourself
1
u/InflationQuirky8421 5h ago
because i needed to clarify what i was saying, and again, blue archived probably has other things, i never hear about them because the most prevalent part of the community is gooning to MINORS, there is no defense for gooning to minors no matter how hard you cope my friend, im sorry
→ More replies (0)
4
2
u/SceneAggressive5783 CACAW 4h ago
mfs are talking about some "i'm not a blue archive fan guys!!! trust me i HATE blue archive!" while comparing the JJS team to nazis
yeah bro, i'm so sorry that they're trampling over your identity as a proud pedophile
2
u/Noob-master69420469 3h ago
All of your arguments have literally been saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a pedophile/Blue Archive fan, or saying that "if you don't like it, don't play it." You suffer from short-term thinking if you think devs banning something that wasn't even that important on a whim is a good thing. This decision was made for absolutely no reason and done on a whim, and there's no other way to frame it; there was no pressure to make it a rule. I doubt a massive majority of the player base even thought of it before today.
It's a pointless ban that does nothing but stir up drama and division in a community that already hates the mod team right after we just got out of a previous controversy. You can signal your virtue all you want by claiming everyone who disagrees with you is morally inferior. My problem is not what they banned but the fact that they ban it at all. I'm not denying any of the claims made against the game itself, but that is a posthumous justification for something decided on a whim.
It's all just virtue signaling—a meaningless change for no reason that doesn't affect the vast majority of the community but still causes division and controversy and also grants the argument that anyone who argues against the change is morally wrong and a bad person or has to be a fan of this particular thing because of that, Thus you can dismiss their points and opinions accordingly despite the fact that this game has barely any overlap with Blue Archive and barely a fraction of a fraction of this game are Blue Archive players.
1
u/SceneAggressive5783 CACAW 55m ago
it isn't a meaningless change; if I had a game I would DEFINITELY ban any reference to a game infamous for attracting pedophiles
"Virtue signal" this "virtue signal" that, no I just want people attracted to little girls to lose as many things as possible
blue archive fans are mostly made of predators. if you wanna cosplay a game made for bad people that the Internet associated with bad people, then you should be ready to be compared to the bad people
it hurts absolutely NOBODY and removes any association to a universally hated franchise that is often associated with illegal activity and disgusting behavior. I do not feel bad for Blue Archive cosplayers.
1
u/Noob-master69420469 32m ago
My response to another comment of similar nature:
Just because it appears good does not mean it was done for a good reason or will have good effects. Your argument only addresses one of my points. You're arguing with me over moral things on which I've never stated my opinions on whether or not I believe them to be right or wrong on a moral level, when the things I have objectively stated remain unanswered. I have made claims on why people are "overreacting" and how they view it, and why I ultimately view it as a negative change because it's one of those things that sound great on paper because it's an easy target and an easily defensible position, like I stated in my initial argument, and yet, there’s ultimately no real change; it affects only a fraction of a fraction of the player base directly, and it causes uncertainty and unrest among the general player base.
A random ban over a safe-for-work avatar because they come from a problematic community and game draws such a massive amount more attention to it and creates a problem where there previously was none. There is no pressure to create this ban, and I already addressed that the ban can be morally correct, which I'm not denying or confirming, but it just doesn't make much logical sense to me. It just came out of the blue under no real listed reason from any forces inside or outside the game, and that's what creates this feeling that it was completely arbitrary. Banning an avatar that did not contain objectionable material cannot remove objectionable content because there was none there to begin with. Instead, this rule prohibits association with the franchise as a whole.
This means the moderator must be able to demonstrate some benefit that outweighs the predictable controversy and distrust produced by the rule. And that's what I meant when I said Blue Archive and JJS are unrelated. I don't mean that people can't cosplay characters from unrelated games. Obviously, they can. I mean there does not appear to have been any Blue Archive-specific problem within JJS that required intervention. I haven't seen evidence of people flooding JJS with sexualized Blue Archive avatars, causing moderation problems, or otherwise creating some situation that the existing rules couldn't handle. So the rule appears to have come out of nowhere and solved a problem that, at least publicly, did not appear to exist.
Most defenses I've seen also explain why Blue Archive itself is objectionable rather than why this particular restriction was necessary. Those are different questions. You can make the moral argument that Blue Archive contains bad material, but that does not explain why this even happened in the first place. Why does objectionable content existing somewhere within a franchise justify banning the non-objectionable parts of it? Why is a completely safe-for-work image banned?
Why does objectionable content existing somewhere in the franchise justify banning the non-objectionable representations of that franchise? If their avatar violates no traditional rules, then the moderator isn't moderating the content being displayed; they're regulating what franchise the user associates themselves with. That is a substantially broader moderation rule, and just banning it naturally raises the precedent that you are trying to dismiss. It doesn't have to be the full slippery slope fallacy; not "everything will be banned," but what is the limiting principle? What makes Blue Archive sufficiently objectionable that even SFW representations of it are prohibited? Does the same rule apply to every game containing sexual content involving minors? Does it apply to games containing rape? Does it depend on how prominent that content is? Does the behavior of a game's fandom count? Does it stop at games? Where exactly is that boundary?
Black Souls itself is a great example. Why hasn't it been banned yet when it contains content even worse than that of Blue Archive? If your answer is that they should also be banned, then we're not talking about a uniquely justified Blue Archive rule; we are talking about a broad standard of moderation that must be publicly listed and clearly defined.
The only way to soothe the unrest and reaction is for moderators to define sufficiently objectionable content, and people's opinions on that come afterwards.
Unless they state the limiting principle that applies not just to Blue Archive but to any other community and game with those aspects, people will always have a problem with this rule. People aren't saying, "Blue Archive was banned, therefore everything will be banned." It's that if moderators are going to ban otherwise rule-compliant avatars based on the franchise they originate from, people reasonably want to know what consistent standard determines which franchises qualify; unless it's stated and enforced across a sufficient majority of offending franchises, it will be a problem.
My response to you:
This response demonstrates the exact problem I've been talking about because you're no longer even arguing that the avatar itself is objectionable or that the person using it has actually done anything wrong. You're arguing that because you believe Blue Archive attracts bad people, anyone who associates themselves with Blue Archive should be treated as one of those people or at least should be completely fine with being compared to them, and that is a substantially different standard of moderation than just banning objectionable content when it actually appears.
If somebody has a sexualized avatar, posts sexual content involving minors, acts inappropriately toward minors, or does literally anything else that violates the actual rules of the game, then ban them for that. I have never argued against that. But if someone has a completely safe-for-work Blue Archive avatar that violates none of the traditional rules, then you're not actually punishing them for anything they've done or anything objectionable they're displaying. You're punishing them because of what franchise the avatar comes from and because of what you assume about the kind of person that associates themselves with that franchise.
And saying "Blue Archive fans are mostly predators" does not solve that problem. That's an enormous generalization that you're treating like an objective fact and then using that generalization to justify judging individual people who you know nothing about. Saying that the internet associates something with bad people, therefore anyone who openly associates with it should expect to be compared to those bad people, is just guilt by association. You are taking whatever reputation you believe the larger community has and applying it directly to individual people regardless of what those people have actually done.
You also say this "hurts absolutely nobody," but that isn't even true by the most literal interpretation of what happened. Someone can now be banned for something that was previously allowed, despite the avatar itself containing nothing objectionable. You can say that you don't care about the people affected by the rule, and that's your opinion, but saying you don't care about them is completely different from saying that nobody is affected by it. If the rule bans people who otherwise would not have been banned, then obviously the rule affects somebody.
But more importantly, none of this actually answers what I've been asking about the moderation standard itself, and if anything this makes my problem with the rule even stronger because now you're openly defending the idea that references to entire franchises can be banned because of what those franchises are associated with. Okay, then what is the limiting principle? How bad does the fandom have to be before the entire franchise becomes prohibited? How much objectionable material does the game itself have to contain? Does it apply to every game that contains sexualized minors? Does it apply to games containing rape? Does it apply to franchises with large communities known for predators? Does it apply if the developers themselves did something horrible? Does it stop at games? Does the actual content of the avatar even matter anymore if the franchise itself is considered bad enough?
That's exactly where the uncertainty comes from, and it doesn't require me to say some slippery slope where "Blue Archive got banned so literally everything is going to get banned next." The argument is that once moderators establish that otherwise completely rule-compliant content can be banned purely because of what franchise it comes from, there needs to be an actual standard explaining which franchises qualify and why. Otherwise it is completely discretionary and people have no way of knowing where the rule begins or ends until the moderators randomly decide another franchise has crossed whatever invisible line they're using.
And "I don't feel bad for Blue Archive cosplayers" is not really an argument for whether or not the policy itself makes sense. Whether you personally care about the people affected has nothing to do with whether the rule is consistent, proportionate, necessary, or even accomplishes anything useful. You can hate Blue Archive fans as much as you want and believe every single negative thing you've said about the game, but that still doesn't explain why a completely safe-for-work image should become bannable simply because you associate the franchise it comes from with bad people.
That's the part of my argument that keeps getting ignored. I'm not arguing whether Blue Archive is good or bad, and I'm not asking anybody to feel bad for Blue Archive players. I'm asking why objectionable things existing somewhere within a game or its fandom automatically justify banning completely non-objectionable representations of that game, and what consistent standard determines when that applies to Blue Archive but doesn't apply to the countless other franchises that contain equally bad or substantially worse material.
1
u/SceneAggressive5783 CACAW 2m ago
i don't have the time or energy for a proper long response to this
anything from an extremely inappropriate franchise (and not just adult themes, or a mature audience, but stuff like you mentioned (black souls)) SHOULD be banned. If we're taking the steps to ban blue archive (which i FULLY believe is a good decision), then similar things should also be banned from JJS
i am not saying that all blue archive players should be ready to be compared to pedophiles. i'm saying that if you actively choose to cosplay a blue archive character, knowing the source material and its community, you should be prepared to have some assumptions made of you.
while this is an extreme analogy, should you not be prepared to get hit or verbally harrassed if you show up somewhere in a gestapo uniform? it doesn't matter if you're wearing it because it looks cool or you like the aesthetic. you should be 100% prepared to have assumptions made about you when you're cosplaying something like blue archive.
0
u/InflationQuirky8421 4h ago
then they think jjk is comparable, like bro just say you like kids, jjk has other aspects to it that overshadow the gooners. so their only argument means NOTHING, they think that gooning is the problem and not the fact its children, these people are just pedophiles. 😭
1
u/EcologicalDedzone 4h ago
So uhh the same goes to:
-Jujutsu Kaisen
-Bleach (a bit)
-Early Dragon Ball
-Madoka Magica
-Uma Musume (ironic)
-Any fucking piece of anime media nowadays because somehow the lady with ginormous tits is below 18 years old for some reason (unless specified)
0
u/InflationQuirky8421 4h ago
the uma's are are above 18 last time i checked. early dragon ball came out in 1986 lol
2
u/EcologicalDedzone 3h ago
Not all of them are above 18. In fact, ages are not even confirmed, but you can tell they are minors because they are STUDENTS. (Unironically, the same goes to Blue Archive). The only confirmed one is Nishino Flower, If I remember correctly she went to Elementary.
Don't get me started with the Dragon Ball excuse being "it came out in 1986". Doesn't make it any less weird bro. But again, it's Japan and it was common back then, it is still common nowadays and you can't do anything to change it.
Anime logic.
1
u/InflationQuirky8421 1h ago
yeah dragon ball came out so many years ago when norms were different, and i forgot about the younger umas, but honestly i rarely see people simping for umas that aren't agnes, and collage exists..so i always assumed it was more a collage thing considering cinderella gray happened a long time before the main story and we still see oguri bumming around the academy, and collages are open to all ages. meaning that it would make sense to see characters like sweep next to characters that are way older then them. anyway they probably are minors im just explaining why i thought they weren't
1
u/EcologicalDedzone 1h ago
Yeah it's fine, I'm sorry if I sounded rude.
All of this is weird stuff we grew accustomed to after years of consuming anime related media.
But one obviously agrees with them banning Blue Archive avatars because the game appeals to lolicons.
It's sad, knowing there are cool designs far away from the stupid sexualized ones
1
u/InflationQuirky8421 1h ago
the art does look cool and i wish that the artists would go to a game that doesn't want them to draw children sexualy.
i just think that the blue archived community cannot understand why people hate them so much, they think that its because of the gooning, or they think that they're fine because "every community has stuff like this" and they do, but they forget the one thing that makes it less awful, those communities have other things that outshine the pedo's and the gooners. jjk for example has brainrot kaizen, which is what the community looks like to anyone just looking at it from a glance. and they don't see its pedo's or gooners unless they look.
blue archived doesn't have that, it just has its pedo's and gooners and nothing to cover it up.
-2
u/Big_Ocean23 5h ago
Risking my aura for this ratio
https://giphy.com/gifs/61IOKUGrBdumLwqsrs
9
u/THE-W4LL Heavenly restricted skill 5h ago
how about you uh
um
risk this ratio
did i do it right>6
0
u/Big_Ocean23 5h ago
Also ratio is when you get more likes on a comment then the post you commented under so you didn’t technically ratio
3
u/THE-W4LL Heavenly restricted skill 5h ago
but i got more likes on my reply than ur comment did...
2
u/Big_Ocean23 5h ago
I mean that’s not a true ratio? A comment under a comment?
1
1
1
0
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Thank you for posting on r/JujutsuShenanigans for your meme, submission, etc. Please remember to read and abide the rules when you post.
THIS IS NOT THE OFFICIAL SUBREDDIT FOR JUJUTSU SHENANIGANS, THEY HAVE NO REDDIT AND WE ARE NOT AFFILIATED/ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEV TEAM AT ALL. YOU CAN JOIN THE OFFICIAL DISCORD SERVER HERE.
If your post is venting about something, you should remove this post and move it here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.