Nothing of Substance

@Zarastro54 wrote:

The thing is, it IS possible to do a redemption story about a seemingly unforgivable, genocidal, murderous bastard. Just look at Omni Man from Invincible or Kratos from God of War. Instead of genuinely reflecting on and coming to terms with their actions and striving to change their ways like those two, Shad seems to think “redemption” is Daylan remaining murderous but redirecting his brutality towards obvious “bad guys” and having everyone (especially women) falling over themselves to tell him how “good” he is. He is simply rewarding and encouraging Daylan’s recidivism and instead of genuine self reflection, it’s more of a self-righteous self-pity party where he still insists on the underlying justness of his actions.

Source: Comment section to [KirkpattieCake]'s review of 'Shadow of the Conqueror'

I suppose it is generally a bad thing to rely on second hand information about a piece of art in order to judge it. And fair enough - I have criticisms of my own regarding the Review, so, take things with a pinch of salt here.

In this universe, it is somewhat difficult to find 'true' opposites. Hot and Cold are only opposite relative to our perception of temperature. Up and Down aren't absolute directions for as far as we can tell. We might try to impose where up is, down then being the other way - where, congratulations, we just figured out an intrinsic property of geometry. Positive and Negative charges, as the presence and absence of a thing, is also not as much a true opposite as it is a binary~ish diad within a given system.

The thing is that most of everything is relative. With God being absolute and all creation yet somehow existing, there isn't a true opposite either. Existence and Inexistence might be opposites, but inexistence isn't even really a thing per se. Satan, or the devil or whatever; An or the entity practically described as opposed to God - is also mostly just a character 'opposite' to God when man took their takes on the revelations, not as much a thing however in scripture itself. And then, in how much one might desire to be an enemy to God - God would not respond in kind, but kindly offer forgiveness.

But sure. The concept of opposites is a simple one. Around every point there is a here and a there. And life - in and of itself as for the most part, has become a matter of being one such point. Far enough away from absolute good and absolute bad to look at either as two opposed ... something's.

So, on the one page I might think of DMX as an opposite to TJ Kirk. I would ascribe some prophetic quality to either of them - but where TJ is a stark anti-believer, DMX would fall into the opposite camp. And strangely enough ... I found that Shad a.k.a. Shadiversity ... might also ... be an opposite to TJ of some kind. Ever so often, defining opposites first however requires, oddly enough - so my thinking at least, some description of the plane in which the two things oppose one another. One plane that the two might fall upon is one of social standing within a community and the concept of cringe. I would regard either as, looking back in time, crucial members of their respective (virtual) communities that so helped shape certain cultural fringes regardless of whether or not other members within those communities would far outshine them. What would prevent them, perhaps, from coming out on top could have been a lack of polish or a certain unbridledness to their presentation; Cringe as it were - mannerisms that weren't as carefully tailored to the sensitivity to their audiences as that of some of their peers. But though this would not apply to those two exclusively, there's the matter still with the more or less implicit cringe. With TJ there's that whole thing with the Banana. And with Shad, well, there's a certain arrogance.

Well, it ... takes a bit of explaining I assume. It's not like he was or is arrogant in his mannerisms. He just used to have this whole disclaimer thing going on whenever voicing or responding to criticism. I would even call that somewhat endearing. I guess it's just a thing that people do - like I myself sometimes - to preface whatever they have or want to say with consideration for each and every possible counter position they might foresee.
And sometimes I feel like all I do is write disclaimers and prefaces - recursively ad infinitum.
At some point however, to come back to the topic, it started to come across as weird. It started to come across as a shield for his arrogance. An attempt at taking a moral high ground to evade or avoid criticism. I don't have any recollection of a specific video or point in time - but I do recall that I at some point had a somewhat dissonant reaction to what he was doing. Something along the lines of prefacing one of his criticisms with one of these disclaimers on civil discourse. Like "we should all get along, BUT, your opinion sucks". Which, sure ... doesn't read as too too weird, until maybe you start wondering why a particular criticism would require him to preface it with a disclaimer on civil discourse.

I suppose it comes across as nitpicky right now. And people that might comb through his catalogue to find what I mean might equally trip over minor things while failing to prove my point. The issue to me then wouldn't be in that. I mean, I probably glanced past it and thought no more of it; And it's just an impression that stuck echoing within my mind. An echo that would further down resonate with other ... things, increasingly growing into ... a yellow flag of sorts. Until it just turned red, possibly requiring me to ... re-evaluate my thoughts on the man.

I mean, for once I hate it when people take shit positions under the pretext that we ought to keep a civil ... facade essentially, while that 'civil discourse' is never about actually being well mannered, but not disagreeing. And it sure is a bit generalized when I speak of the Jew that is asked to keep it friendly with the dude who just voted Hitler, like "Nah, that's just Rhetoric. Nobody truly wants to kill the Jews!" - ... yea ... "right ... -_-".
Anyway, we might return to this later.
For now ... back to Shad.

So, whatever the issue ... what I witnessed was a similar shift in 'vibes' throughout "the community". I mean, it might bite me in the ass later; But ... Metatron still does Anti-SJW~ish content; And he too is a bit weird and cringe and all that, but ... it's not bad vibes. Not yet anyway. So, preface, disclaimer, it's not ... that. It's as if people also felt that shift in tone ... however subtle it may have been ... and it almost seems as though Shad from there started to Spiral ... into ... well, ultimately ... being yet another conservative influencer.

Thereby I suppose I ought to be sure that he thinks he's doing the right thing. It's just to me that Mormons have like a special pass. More literally than one might think or like to believe. And yet I don't really get what it is with Mormons voting Conservative. I mean, I recall having read in one (mormon) book about Joseph Smith's teachings that he too was explicitly anti conservative.
Square that circle as you will.

So, following that ... "shockwave of dissonance" ... it seemed as though Shad had something to prove. Possibly the issue was that he was too theoretical in a field that was more curious of the practical. I suppose that comes with the topic. But if you're confused because I can't put my finger onto something concrete ... that's fine. I don't expect to make much sense at this point.

Well - it seems right however, I feel it, ... that there's a point to be made of how TJ and Shad went down two different paths when it come to dealing with their own cringe. Sure, TJ's is much more explicit - and yet he deals with it like a boss. And Shad ... well, I guess it's time to talk about his book.

So, from what I've heard, "Daylen" was conceived to be worse than Hitler and Stalin combined, came to be remorseful over his crimes and was given a second chance. And as the opening coment put it: That remorse boiled down to redirecting his brutality to others more deserving of it. And from what I've heard ... the chosen target were/are rapists. Judging from what I've heard I assume it's fair to say that one fundamental thesis of the book is that Rapists deserve to die. And also from what I've heard do people that talk about this book have a difficult time reconciling that with the fact that the protagonist himself is also a mass rapist even. What most people then seem to criticize is that the Character does not actually show any signs of change, but exists under the assumption that directing his bad behavior onto bad people makes it right. Also from what I've heard it is thereby implied, that Daylen is a super good, super righteous, super everything type of guy - and that he always has been.

This then somehow reminded me of aforementioned Cringeness. And in all that, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what's ... expected. (From You, Shad).

Anyway. To some extent I can ... follow. Surmise that this Light that the book writes about is some quantifiable reality that enables those who see it to recognize, without fail, who will - let's say, repent upon being forgiven and who would betray any good will afforded to them. Here then Daylen's remorse and repentence were a function of him having been blind in his brutality - and only that. Like, say, he wasn't mindless or ignorant of its consequences - but possibly too ... well ... atheistic/utilitarian/"Communist" in his approach to life. Overall - a failure only due to not "seeing the Light". Being then given "the sight" - would turn him into the most fierce and righteous fighter for what's right. Which ... does give me some Saul/Paul vibes.

And the big ... big big ... big big big big ... topic of the time would be: Why is it wrong?

Like ... to start with: Is it wrong to murder rapists?
I mean, they build the backbone of the thesis. And though he (Shad) might blindly and clumsily stumble from one can of worms into the next in trying to extrapolate it from the metaphors he chose, he does - at least if you squint a little - strike some true beats on forgiveness and the overcoming of trauma.

I mean, I guess we could call it an interesting situation; That the Evil Dictator now Righteous Hero would become the romantic target of a former rape-victim of his who however knew not that it was him. We could open up plays on how our own prejudice blinds us. Of how certain bits of knowledge may throw us into irrational rage. Well, assuming that the premise of the story - that Daylen is actually a really good guy (so good that having (near) infinite power wouldn't ever - unironically - turn bad (kind-of like Goku I assume)). So, saying that by the book, Daylen is like a misunderstood Character that has the power to step beyond the misconceptions of those that misunderstand him. To state then, with confidence, that Daylen used his strength to exact justice. Not because he's forced to - coerced, corrupted or whatever, but because he means well.
Therein then it is stated that there is no justice in vengeance - as against him - because he's no longer a person that does bad things.
They'd punish a person that is, well - in a way ... innocent.

So, I'm sure it is a play at the Christian concept of forgiveness. But to say that it fails in a lot of positions might be an understatement. But, well, I suppose ... it is after all born from within a very or rather conservative worldview.

Anyhow. The book effectively states itself, that even rapists can be forgiven. Without however getting into too much detail of the morality behind it. And it is a very sensitive topic. And the way it is dealt with is in line with what arrogance I accuse Shad of. I mean, I personally bathe, ravel and subseqently cover myself in thoughts of rape, depravity and all that - but I don't dare to speak in behalf of true victims of such crimes because I understand that I don't have the experience.
To then simply be upset in their behalf does very well seem to be a reasonable response - as that may just be the best we can do. There further isn't much wrong in wrapping that up in revenge-porn; I think; Except when the story is about forgiveness. Because then, all of a sudden, the unforgivable isn't unforgivable anymore ... and "just get over it" ... well, I guess we could start with why it rubs people the wrong way.

In all simplicity - I think it's first and foremost because ... hmm. I mean ... there at least is the issue of people getting away with rape because of some BULLSHIT excuse and how that possibly is one of the many reasons WHY there isn't much room for sympathy. But, to not get carried away - in Shad's defense I suppose we can say that he was a bit naive. And I can't tell how well or bad the respective Characters are written out. So, there's that.

But so we come to the part where, I assume, we're told that we misunderstand the thing, that we have to get over it - implying as much as that there's nothing wrong with the whole situation offered to us ... and if we disagree the almighty Daylen would like to have a word with us.

To dig a little deeper then, there's something cheap about the premise. So, you'd think of the most evilest bad boy imaginable and then just magically imply that he's a good guy actually. And yea, I guess in a way that's a play on the immutable goodness of our hearts, we might say. Like saying that good and bad are relative. Or that the devil's in the detail. That often enough what separates a villain from a hero is merely a matter of perhaps even just a single tiny seemingly trivial happenstance. Or whatever it is, however to put it ... that all of us can be forgiven. That we all can be shining lights in the darkness of the world.

The thing however is that anyone with a bit of emotional trauma akin to that of being a victim of rape would throw that book out of the window and attempt to erase it from their memory banks. The quint-essential problem is, that Daylen, as a mass rapist, from what I could gather, never actually repents outside of finding a different outlet for his rapist tendencies. Which, I suppose, is a clumsy way of saying that ... I suppose that the essence of what makes a rapist is for once never properly explored - and the Characteristics that would be found within the Daylen Character get thoroughly ignored. Though there's a chance that ... the reviewers just didn't pick up on it.

But so: Daylen so used to be the type of guy that would kidnap women or underage girls, rape them - being sure however to not lay with more than one at a time - to then kick them out when done with them. While making sure, on a sidenote, that no children come of it. And I'm moved to label that as disturbing - reading it as part of the whole "Communism bad, Abortion bad" plot beats - but to solve that part of the narrative is like a raid boss where the issue with Daylen's Character would be a more basic enemy.
I mean, so the story goes: He had a premise - an intriguing one, as it's not the kind of story you'd hear everywhere. But to make it good would be a matter of ironing out the kinks. And if the bad guy ... in all of his/their/her vile behavior comes across as being secretly admired as the real hero ... that's an easy way of getting people onto the "wrong" side of this. Or how to put it.

I mean, however often KirkpattieCake would come to call Daylen "the Dictator" ... I was put under the impression that to her the two Characters were emotionally the same. And like, say, facts don't care about your feelings, is it yet a fact that we have a world to pick examples from where facts are used to manipulate feelings. To say ... fuck your facts.
Or in a more level-headed way of putting it: If my impression of a Character is "such and such" - writing a disclaimer to inform me that actually they're not while failing to make it believable ... I don't care about the disclaimer.

What I mean is this: Daylen, a mass rapist, who would kidnap yada yada such and such - expresses a certain willingness to transgress other people's boundaries as to invade their personal space. He might do all the probably politically motivated killing under the guise of some greater good and then imply that he deserved to take the freedom to do the other thing. So is there then the woman protagonist of the story - who is from what I've heard traumatized. Hints of sexuality give her panic attacks, an abortion made her infertile - and Daylen was the one who caused it. Now, by Shad's account - I'm sure - we're to accept that Daylen is a changed man. That while he still is the same Character that would do such things - as by temperament - he would no longer do that. That he himself suffers the guilt of his past to the point where he finds it difficult to live. So much even that he may semi-spontaneously die of it.
And sure, if we are to fogive, what is a man such as Daylen to do?

I mean - the situation at the end, regardless of how I or we might wanna twist and turn it, is, that in our eyes - and even so in his (Daylen's) own - the best he could is to die - and that is the one thing the book EXPLICITLY takes from us. And on top of it it just happens to be so that Daylen is the kind of guy that does everything better than everyone else. It's as if Shad made a deliberate choice to make it so that Daylen has nothing to be sorry for - for being who he is - ignoring the sins of his past.

Which makes this whole thing ... annoyingly inspired.
To me.

I mean, the Holy Ghost has to be somewhere in there - and as it seems, the situation is one where personal desires and good virtue enter some form of abominable symbiosis. I mean, baptism isn't unification. And one of the issues with baptism, as a cleansing that's supposed to cripple our ability to do bad, is, that it ... well ... just doesn't make us fall into stasis if that's what had to happen for us to do no wrong or harm. So while I think that Shad doesn't hate any one of the LGBTQ - for instance - he's triggered of what nuisances are carried to his attention. Which is a fair thing to be. Then upon conceiving iniquity, or the possibility thereof, he probably gets zaelous against it. While that might not strike anyone as particularly special, one is to understand that Baptism yet enforces this - well, so my theory at least - what people might call 'decent behavior' or "the very least".
It's like a shell of moral gray and ambiguity in which merely the motivation matters. I assume. So it would seem. Beyond which the freedom of Character yet comes into play. And sure, what we might call 'commanding will'. So, motivation may be the wrong word. But ... something along the lines of emotional freedom.

And yea, it might be somewhat dangerous if a person without a well adjusted moral compass lacks the emotional freedom for indulging in evil. Dangerous because they can quite easily delude themselves into doing good - while their base disposition within social environments is one of pleasantries and cooperation - regardless of how heinous their convictions are.

So, to come back to the female protagonist. I meant to stress that she's traumatized - explicitly by Daylen - to surmise as much as that the trauma is rather concerning the invasion of her space; Being sexual due to the sexual nature of the invasion, thus ultimately being triggered by matters of sexuality that remind her of that invasion. And to have Daylen then "fix her" by yet again being invasive - well, does it make sense?

For, what else makes sense is for her to have a reason to hate him. If not for raping her, then for being that invasive type of person. In that sense it would also be reasonable to fall in love with him - given that she only saw slices and heroic behavior of him while he was generally still, probably, rather withdrawn as to keep up the pretense of not actually being the dictator. So, having something to hide would make him more mysterious while also acting more passively than he ordinarily would. She so might be lulled into letting his ways pass - though deep inside time and time again the understanding of his invasive nature would pile up and ultimately turn into resentment once again.

I guess ... that is the kind of drama ... that just tends to happen rather often. I mean, people meeting each other under some pretense and then being shocked of whom they met once enough time has passed.

The sitation is that we do have feelings. And we're entitled to them. We ... may in fact ... not like certain people. Ultimately the matter of liking certain people more than others is the inverse thereof and at the heart of a few things, actually, that are generally deemed integral to culture.

And yea, that turns out to be a problem with how well the whole Anti-Woke narrative mingles with the existence of bad movies, chronically broke yet terminally online keyboard warriors and ... a few shots of nostalgia.

So, Daylen may not be a bad person. But he isn't really that big of a hero either. At least not by Biblical standards. By the world-building excuses are given to him that don't require him to change much in order to 'do good' - and that's why one might see it as being in somewhat bad taste.

I mean, the fact that Daylen runs around unapologetically swinging his attitude into people's faces because him being invincible makes him universally right somehow ... well, it ... speaks to people. And generally, and that also goes unto what kind of a hero in regards to art in culture he is, I assume it only speaks positively to those that are like 'old' Daylen; Though I doubt that some magical way to see "the Light" is going to the same trick on them. But ... I might be wrong I guess.
I mean - there's the part of the story where he first returns home to pick up some of his stuff. And so he adorns himself with what he presumably used to adorn himself with as Dictator. His super sword and as a cherry on top some pin that signifies himself as one of the top 50 super high grand masters of the realm or something. And sure enough goes around proving that - growing right into his gear. And presumably, so I gathered, keeps talking back at the guy supposedly there to help him not squander his second chance. The thing then is that the challenges he has to face aren't stacked against him. They're more like ... boxes that need to be checked before calling it a story. And yea, it's difficult to have it any other way when picking a foe as uncomfortably disturbing as child-rape. Which takes us back to the thing with this kind of attitude of ... cleansing the world of filth. I mean, in a fantasy world with no real life consequences it possibly makes sense. The realm of Everfall is saved, the End. And while it may be a bit unfair to lump him squarely in with that crowd ... I yet do not see any realization of the kind of good story telling that these anti-wokes love so much about "them good old times".

Like so it isn't even actually rape-revenge porn. Gnarrr ... there's just so much.
But so - it's one thing to have a hero fighting the bad in some hypothetical universe; But another to deliver meaningful tales unto the living. Like ... what right does any human being have to run around telling people to shut up and being called a hero for that?
I mean, wanting to do good is great. And caring too much about what people think of you is bad. For sure. But for how the story was set up - to do the big no-no of giving the author advice of what he could have done better - it would have been more interesting had Daylen be more intimately confronted with the errors of the past, as opposed to having that just written into his emotional burden. I mean, if one not so subtle thesis of the book is that communism is bad - or unrelenting political violence - it would have been interesting to see Daylen be tempted to fall back into his old modus operandi and see the harm of it. So we might have a bit of ... Light being born unto us. As opposed to "Yes Daylen" - the Novel. Daylen the Magnificent.

Him being grieved over these things has us assume that he understands all that already. He probably had plenty of time to think and ponder upon it all. But one criticism then levied against the book is that the reader doesn't necessarily understand that he understands. It would also have been interesting to maybe learn more about the duality of a person that is a good and upstanding guy on the one side, but a terrifying dictator on the other. Like, what is it that made him the one thing, versus ... what it means to do better. Sure ... having thought to know better, I assume. To do it all gain, but this time with the magic sight. That says as much as that it's perfectly fine to be a rampaging lunatic for as long as it hits the right people. As opposed to ... learning through his mistakes what it means to truly do good?
"But the rapists!".
Yea, apparently some of them can become very outstanding heroes and warriors for all that is good and righteous!

And so is the thing. I'm willing to accept that. But in so doing ... I can't fully buy into the whole "slaughter all heathen (now that I'm no longer one of them?)" narrative. I mean, wasn't it Jesus who said as much as: "Were I to do cereals right now - y'all'd be pretty fucked up for real for real!". Though it actually says more along the lines of "I came not to judge but to redeem" - but ... same thing. And I'm sorry; But the only way I can take this story even just somewhat seriously is as a Christian allegory or parable or something. Whether or not it does what it's supposed to ... hard to say. I mean, I want to be clear that I'm not saying that Daylen is a bad person. Or wrong for doing the right thing. That certainly is what the book insists on ... and so it shall be. But there's still much to be desired.
I mean, if 'goodness' - or so: "The brightness of the heart" is merely a measure of the amount of fervor with which one is willing to lay down the havoc upon them sinners ... or, ... hmm ... if it is that to you'd also strike me as the type of person that would enjoy the sequels over the original trilogy. Which to me is almost as bad as having the wrong political opinions - though I'm still willing to maintain peace. As from a Christian, ... it makes me feel like we read entirely different books. I mean, we could make it a thing about Saul versus David. Saul being the one who didn't understand why not to do a thing - David being the one who didn't understand what made him special. The "Saulites" being the ones who think that Saul was wronged - and the "Anti-Saulites" being the ones who think that he was unfit to rule. Or how to put it.

The thing is that Saul strikes me as the type of person that would insist on being right no matter what. And if they were ever found out to be wrong ... they'd still find a way of saying that they were right actually. That it was just ... a big misunderstanding. Or an evil ploy to get them gotten. You know ... "it's not what it looks like!".

And ... I suppose I could go on here ... like, there's that Song from Metallica that I think is really awesome: Until it Sleeps. It also fits right into this whole thing, whatever it has grown to at this point. And sure, I also had to think of Megan Fox' book at one occasion. Touching upon the darkness that seems to be irredeemably grown into our beings. TO then talk perhaps some more of the rapist and the raped - and whatever consoling qualities there might be between the two. But then again, I'm ... like ... sorry; But that requires respect.

Which makes me think ... that Daylen is like utterly unwilling to redeem himself by anything but the continuation of his ways ... or death. And the grand question, to remove this utterly bizarre story from the world of fantasy, of what good a person such as Daylen would actually do us. I mean sure, throw ... Demons and Irredeemable Rapists and other Scum into this world and there might be a point. It's one thing this seems to boil down to. Regardless of how nonsensical it is, however often I'll have to repeat it, to rely upon having a fiend to fight - just conjure up some foe that needs to be beaten into submission and yay - we might thank God for the men who know whom to kill versus whom not to kill. Those be the tough decisions I presume that leftists are too weak to make and yet somehow we're all practically Stalin.

And yea, I assume it's a fair bet that this whole Conservative circlejerk was a major obstacle in the way of what the book could have become.

And you'd think that people who'd spit so hard of individual agency wouldn't need to be spoonfed the rights from the wrongs.

It's almost like "lefties", the libs, the goodie two shoes, are still good for something. I mean, we could be. But I guess we're the degenerate enemy.

Sorry. That's ... all just conjecture. I understand.
It's just ... well. I have a hard time here as I'm trying to not do the "let me tell you what it actually means to be "that person"" thing, but then - I assume - my considerations and concerns yet inevitably flow through my consciousness and ... then end up drawing perhaps a little bit too much from personal issues.
Projection ... some might say.

But yea, it's ... in the doctrine. Repentence. And from what I gather, "the world"s understanding of Repentance is extremely Low Res. Thos that "practice it" properly would then have different words for it. Self-reflection and introspection being some. Self-actualization also counts. And apparently my innate repentance is like ... Sexy.

And yea, at some point it stops merely being repentance. It's ... evolution.

So, on the other side then I think there are people who want us to be proud that they somehow understand that bad people need to be punished. The problem then being that their understanding of what constitutes 'bad people' is rather ... bad itself. Underdeveloped might be one way to put it. But ... 'selfish' is the term with the most oomph in that scenario. Because ... if one's idea of what a bad persons is, is informed by selfishness ... there seems to be no way to reasonably talk to them of anything deeper than a shot of bad whiskey. Not to say or assume or imply that they couldn't have a good side one might get at ... though ever so often things like gender, pronouns, color of skin, religion, dialect/accent and possibly more ... would be things to take into consideration before trying.

Ond so, here we are ... with Daylen and this ... "I'm good now, deal with it" attitude. I mean, in terms of what constitutes 'bad people' ... there's that whole "but the rapists" thing, which nowadays I assume mostly takes shape in that "all women are brats" rhetoric. While it seems to be vastly disjointed - all it takes is an enemy that represents all the bad of it.
And like God does not give us the magic eye to justify unrelenting bloodshed, one is free to assume that in this book - indirectly - God is put on trial; For like ... allowing this really good good person to have turned so evil.

Hmm ... I'm kindof running in circles here ...

Anyhow, so the point that ... TJ Kirk's narrative makes more sense than this. To get back to the matter of opposites. And from either side we get incredibly different concepts of morality. For the one, it seems to be a function of the world to bend to one's own capacity to do good - and for the other it seems to be a pragmatic relationship with the rest of society. And I guess that's really the way to put it. The words ... I was looking for. For once saying that 'pragmatism' is way of saying 'work'. 'Function'. Something that is concrete. To directly deal and engage with the things around. To see their flaws and features and try to work towards the best of it all. On the other side, and I guess I'm sorry if I'm like ... talking of Shad as though he were his book, there's this weird idea that one's persona is a thing for the world to care about. That one's own failures are for the world to 'deal with' - because sucking things up is for suckers and making people suck things up is a great show of mature responsible thinking.

Pro tip: If you're feeling guilty over something ... that's like ... a good place to start. Figure out what caused you to do things that make you feel guilty; And look for a way to change it.
It's ... not always simple. I mean ... I recently felt guilty for buying too much expensive food while outside - well, because a) foot outside IS expensive and b) I didn't have any means to make warm food at home and c) what I could think of having in my fridge turned somewhat monotonous. So I felt I had no other choice. No time in the morning, no organization while outside and a cold heart yearning for something warm in the evening. But I could yet motivate myself to a) buy with reason, b) focus on stuff I'd like to eat anyway and c) maybe spice things up with snacks? It's not that it changed all that much - but that's also not the point. That's the secret. It's not actually about what you do ... it's about the reasons behind why you do things. And ever so often the issue just is that there is no reason. Thus working to have some ... helps. Well, until you fail your own reasoning behind stuff ... that usually takes a little bit longer to work around.
Now, if you're feeling guilty because you're not feeling guilty, because you're well off or something, that too can lead you down to something. And it may not be charity. Anyway I think that Charity is more of a band-aid solution that nobody should rely upon.
And in a way, I suppose living guilt free is ... . Well, it definitely is possible. And ... as something, unless it's externally induced, that your own mind produces, it's like ... a super personal suggestion. We might call it: A way of your subconscious to manifest your better self. But what I meant is that sometimes it can't be helped. Which I suppose is about ... preparing for the long haul.

Anyway ... I don't like what I've done here. Like, exposing myself to scrutiny over how well or unwell my repentence now actually is. Repentence isn't a thing that you can 'show' or really 'virtue signal' much. It's one of those things that happens in silence. Internally as before the eyes of God. And if God likes what He sees ... well ... He might want you to be in His gang sotospeak.
What one must not forget thereby is that personal balance is important. Which, if I remember correctly, is like a major part of what I'm trying to tell you, so, in general. Just like shaming others into remorse over not being good or perfect enough is ... well, I suppose that's also kind of a thing I do ... . Maybe. Like when I'm saying, or trying to say, that it's a bad thing actually ... I am kind of ... doing it. That's why balance matters again.
I suppose it's a bad habit also. One I've indulged in a little bit too much now, I fear. Like so, at the very least may I say that it's easy to start guilt tripping over minor nonsense. And the only way to really know the difference is to give it time and ... pull the breks when it becomes an actual issue.

At this point I'm merely concerned. Enough for me to look forward to explore different avenues ... which at this point is more about writing less. I mean, within my musings I tend to forget or overlook that I'm basically just thinking out loud and that there isn't some kind of quality control in place. I guess it annoys me myself when I'm like ... acting as some arbiter of morality - but then also, it kind of can't be helped sometimes. And given how it's also a bit like sports, even somewhat competitive, I am at some liberties to indulge a little.

Then, it's also mostly a matter of feelings. Which is probably the big reason why people would or might take issue with this kind of stuff. I mean, statements over what's bad or good or fair or reasonable - often come as expressions of what feels right at the time. Usually, I suppose, while writing some script - which is anyway a state in which one is vulnerable to one's own emotional conditions. "Which is not to say that one shouldn't engage with it" - well, is then one of those things that's almost too trivial to even think of writing down. But then ... the written word is different to the spoken one. One does in writing also not have the luxury of a counterpart that can interject. Or of whom you could imply that understanding. And in a world where people love to twist one's words against them ... well, yea, it's not like clarifications help against that ...

Anyway, I guess what Shad did right~ish was to not overthink it; Though some of the themes may have picked somewhat overambitiously. Where I think then that Shad failed in treating the opened topics with enough respect or sincerity. Though he might have been sincere with what is implied ... it seems to be very one-sided. I'm curious to learn though what I could have done better come the next few days after I unloaded this onto the internet, like, I'm almost certain I don't want to have this float around on my to do list for longer than it has to.
I also had a bit of a hard time writing this. At numerous occasions I had some words on mind that ... slipped right from it. Sometimes that happens to me because I get to look at what I thought once spelled out and then see it from a different angle. So, it's that I wrote what I thought to write, but then it no longer appears to be what I meant to say. So, that's a me problem. Basically. Ever so often the issue then simply is, that the idea as present on my mind requires more context to make the kind of sense I implied. And I sure have made an effort into learning to get that right.
So, sincerity. The implied context to that word here is technically a matter of world-building, but to greater effect the kind we do IRL to improve our conditions. Like, say, Marxism plus Democracy makes for a different kind of communism than Marxism minus Democracy. Like anything plus or minus a Dictator. And to learn that these intricacies do matter every now and then is a function of sincerity. A sincerity that may then require someone to lean against their own biases and pre-conceived notions.

The reason I chose to write this is because I thought that Daylen might be an intriguing Character to look at and because I thought that I kind of have to ... as a quasi Mormon. And maybe there's also a bit of sympathy for the underdog as to give the misunderstood a fair shake they wouldn't get elsewhere. And sure ... bashing conservatives.
Something also made me assume that people might care about what I have to say to this.

Bottom line ... Daylen might be forgiven, but he still has a long way to go towards becoming likable. It's like, without his superpowers he'd still just be some dude that'd have to bend to the whims of the world. He'd probably also get into more trouble when trying to fight himself out of the shit he'd get himself into.
The powers he commands there seem as a crutch for Daylen to wield respect - as to thereby be put in a position where people will be forced to pay attention to him; As to find that he's a good guy actually. And yea, that to me comes across as very juvenile and immature. It's like saying: What if the Pizzagate guy was right actually? It's utterly removed from reason and reality. Though it may yet serve as a fine prism for the concept of forgiveness, I find it to be aggravatingly free of substance.

On a sidenote: Berating people who criticize you for not being smart or pure or whatever enough isn't a way of "engaging with their criticism". In this particular instance that particular concern probably boils down to a case of talking past each other. A matter to which God is possibly the last arbiter of who actually missed whom. I mean, a thing of the world and the vastly different perspectives we have is, that people might get at your stuff from a position you didn't anticipate. That's not 'unfair' - and only marginally a case of them misunderstanding you. To adjust to new information is one of the many things that requires ... the whole contemplating, pondering and self-actualization stuff. And yea, sometimes minor information may give us a looot to think about. Which ... isn't necessarily an easy task. There are but a few I know of that I'd trust with being in a position to boot with that would enable them to reasonably deal with such nonsense. Which is why, I assume, people often say that one should stick with what they know. Which sure is sound advice.

But well, what's the most recent thing? AI Art. So, people have come out making fun - sort of - of Shad for being an outspoken advocate for A.I. art. And from what I've seen I have also seen things that would allow Shad to believe that he's in the right, next to what is however reasonable criticism. I mean, for once are artists just in general somewhat pissed that A.I. made it so easy to jeopardize their entire livelihood as artists. Making the case that in order to produce A.I. art that follows intention and purpose as opposed to being a fun slot machine one needs to have some artistic skill doesn't help there - when the work that the A.I. does is effectively stolen from others. Either way do artists have a way of being full of themselves, so, ... skip on that ... I mean, there's something weird about artists that "have to" talk about how good they are.

Anyway ... I'm approaching the threshold of how much (time) I feel comfortable with dumping into this - so, in closing, know that I don't feel comfortable publishing this. But sometimes good things hurt before they feel good. I mean, I've also noticed that I'm a bit too weak sometimes - for my own taste. Perhaps. That I'm too anxious to do certain things - that then end up being actually great. Though because those things tend to be in conflict with my general harmony ... I don't bother too much. I also tend to bend ever so slightly to what I perceive as other people's sensitivities. That would be a function of trying to right by people - but between honesty, making the tough decisions and arrogance that's ... not always an easy juggle.
So yea. I liked Shad. He did a bunch of cool stuff. So, this isn't meant as a personal attack but ... as a political statement - as to voice grievances over certain attitudes that are going around these days.

So long.