Justifying genocide

[Einergaenger]

While it is true SH has some of the most amateur, wish-fulfilling, harem loving, human objectifying, genocide loving, almost besti*lity, almost illegal, straight up illegal contents... It is also important to know that it's about finding the right crowd.

The thing about receiving backlash is the ability to sort out the one that just harasses you and the ones that have valid criticism.

My personal piece on genocide is that it's good if it's done with purpose and written well. My favorite of these would probably be the one in the end of a certain 'Tales Of' game. Won't tell you which one though.

 

[SailusGebel]

A shame if someone locked this thread

Beep-Bop-Boop

 

[Zinless]

@forli Dude, I just realized that you're the one who wrote the queen of darkness story!?!

You're literally my inspiration to write!?!?

 

[RebelLion]

Never a boring day in SHF

What do you expect? Those are the ones who give 1-star ratings.

 

[Lloyd]

I call it being emotional. If it was Lloyd, Kusa, or someone else doing it, I would think they want to cause trouble. I don't know forli good enough to say this. However, if you look at forli's book and what he or she posted there, you can clearly see that he or she doesn't want to stir up trouble.

I'm not here to stir up trouble. I'm just the realist one on this website.

 

[RebelLion]

I'm not here to stir up trouble. I'm just the realist one on this website.

The world need more realists like you.

 

[SailusGebel]

I'm not here to stir up trouble. I'm just the realist one on this website.

Yeah-yeah, whatever.

 

[owotrucked]

Excuse 1 - I committed genocide in self-defense:

Killing someone to stop them from killing you or someone else is usually considered to be morally acceptable. So if the only way to save your family/friends/people is to kill the group that's threatening them, that should also be fine, right? The fans of stories that do this will usually be like "If I had to kill thousands to save my loved ones I would do it! If you think that's wrong is because you have been brainwashed by modern Western values!".

The problem is that the very idea of killing thousands of civilians being the only way to protect your loved ones is completely bonkers.

In the cases when the protagonist is overpowered and the bad guys pose no real threat, I'd argue that even killing an enemy army is morally dubious when they can just be threatened instead. But even if the bad guys are a real threat, it's insane to think that killing civilians is necessary.

So these authors always need to turn their characterization and world-building into complete nonsense.

I'd like to raise the need of development for the underlined statement. These conclusions follow implicit values that need to be explicited to be discussed meaningfully.

For instance, if you decide to maximize short-term efficiency (spending minimal resources) and safety (lowest risk of casualties in your side), aiming at defenseless civilians is actually the most cost-effective method to win a war. In practice, this can be observed in ANY RTS games such as starcraft, warcraft, age of empire. Striking the economy and making raids at the opponent's base will affect their ability to sustain their armies and replenish their supplies. In such case, you'll be able to whittle down the enemy until you have enough power to sweep the enemy in one go with your power advantage, resulting into a landslide victory according to the Lanchester's square law.
(sidenote: In "I grow stronger by eating!", the MC party presented killing enemy civilian city producing firearms as a necessity to fuck the morally constrained goddess' Hero and break their blessing.)

In the real world, it's logical for Putin to terror bombs civilians to wear down the ukrainian economy if he still clings on the sliver of chance of 'winning'.

It makes no material sense for battling nations to strictly restrict themselves to clashing armies. If there is such agreement, it most likely comes from nations with superior armies who are 100% certain of winning every military conflicts. And you'll be sure that if they suddenly found themselves in the losing side, they'll immediately drop their own made-up rules that were supposed to advantage themselves.

I'd like to argue instead, that the morality of killing thousands of civilians doesn't lie in the short-term gain, but in the long-term rift between the opposing sides of the conflict, and the marking of your descendants as being the children of a global threat. While you might have guaranteed the survival of your people during your lifetime, you're actually just leaving your descendant embroiled in a hell of never-ending conflicts.

Far from being insane, killing civilians and thus cutting supply lines are the most cost-effective way to annihilate an enemy army. Living beings are often willing to overlook long term and spiritual costs to achieve survival. For that reason, a character that makes the morally right decision requires much more strength and resolve than going the easy path.

 

[SailusGebel]

I'd like to raise the need of development for the underlined statement. These conclusions follow implicit values that need to be explicited to be discussed meaningfully.

For instance, if you decide to maximize short-term efficiency (spending minimal resources) and safety (lowest risk of casualties in your side), aiming at defenseless civilians is actually the most cost-effective method to win a war. In practice, this can be observed in ANY RTS games such as starcraft, warcraft, age of empire. Striking the economy and making raids at the opponent's base will affect their ability to sustain their armies and replenish their supplies. In such case, you'll be able to whittle down the enemy until you have enough power to sweep the enemy in one go with your power advantage, resulting into a landslide victory according to the Lanchester's square law.
(sidenote: In "I grow stronger by eating!", the MC party presented killing enemy civilian city producing firearms as a necessity to fuck the morally constrained goddess' Hero and break their blessing.)

In the real world, it's logical for Putin to terror bombs civilians to wear down the ukrainian economy if he still clings on the sliver of chance of 'winning'.

It makes no material sense for battling nations to strictly restrict themselves to clashing armies. If there is such agreement, it most likely comes from nations with superior armies who are 100% certain of winning every military conflicts. And you'll be sure that if they suddenly found themselves in the losing side, they'll immediately drop their own made-up rules that were supposed to advantage themselves.

I'd like to argue instead, that the morality of killing thousands of civilians doesn't lie in the short-term gain, but in the long-term rift between the opposing sides of the conflict, and the marking of your descendants as being the children of a global threat. While you might have guaranteed the survival of your people during your lifetime, you're actually just leaving your descendant embroiled in a hell of never-ending conflicts.

Far from being insane, killing civilians and thus cutting supply lines are the most cost-effective way to annihilate an enemy army. Living beings are often willing to overlook long term and spiritual costs to achieve survival. For that reason, a character that makes the morally right decision requires much more strength and resolve than going the easy path.

Not only wear down the economy, but also pressure people into surrendering. Though they obviously won't surrender, he thinks, or at least thought, that casualties would make them cave in as he didn't want a prolonged war.

 

[Drytron]

"You don't agree with me so you must be attacking me."
Yeah, sure. What do we get from agreeing with you?

 

[Sabruness]

I'd like to raise the need of development for the underlined statement. These conclusions follow implicit values that need to be explicited to be discussed meaningfully.

For instance, if you decide to maximize short-term efficiency (spending minimal resources) and safety (lowest risk of casualties in your side), aiming at defenseless civilians is actually the most cost-effective method to win a war. In practice, this can be observed in ANY RTS games such as starcraft, warcraft, age of empire. Striking the economy and making raids at the opponent's base will affect their ability to sustain their armies and replenish their supplies. In such case, you'll be able to whittle down the enemy until you have enough power to sweep the enemy in one go with your power advantage, resulting into a landslide victory according to the Lanchester's square law.
(sidenote: In "I grow stronger by eating!", the MC party presented killing enemy civilian city producing firearms as a necessity to fuck the morally constrained goddess' Hero and break their blessing.)

In the real world, it's logical for Putin to terror bombs civilians to wear down the ukrainian economy if he still clings on the sliver of chance of 'winning'.

It makes no material sense for battling nations to strictly restrict themselves to clashing armies. If there is such agreement, it most likely comes from nations with superior armies who are 100% certain of winning every military conflicts. And you'll be sure that if they suddenly found themselves in the losing side, they'll immediately drop their own made-up rules that were supposed to advantage themselves.

I'd like to argue instead, that the morality of killing thousands of civilians doesn't lie in the short-term gain, but in the long-term rift between the opposing sides of the conflict, and the marking of your descendants as being the children of a global threat. While you might have guaranteed the survival of your people during your lifetime, you're actually just leaving your descendant embroiled in a hell of never-ending conflicts.

Far from being insane, killing civilians and thus cutting supply lines are the most cost-effective way to annihilate an enemy army. Living beings are often willing to overlook long term and spiritual costs to achieve survival. For that reason, a character that makes the morally right decision requires much more strength and resolve than going the easy path.

as an aside to this, it's long been shown that despite the theory, in practice in reality it never actually works even with the threat of nuclear weapons use (with the atomic bombings of Japan to end WW2 being the exceptions that prove the rule)

as a thought experiment, it's an interesting thing to ponder as what is theoretically most efficient and least damaging to one side is extremely harmful to the other yet at the same time, when not subject to hard and solid lines which demarcate the 'tipping point' where success is guaranteed you have the eternal question of value and real effectiveness.

 

[TotallyHuman]

One of the weirdest things about web novels that I've noticed is how there seem to be A LOT of authors that really want to have their main characters commit genocide. Most of the time it feels like the author just started by wanting the main character to be a mass murderer and then wrote a story around it.

yes. And there is nothing wrong with writing what you want to write. "I wrote mc to be a war criminal because I wanted to" is as good a reason as any.

Now, at first, you might think that if that's what you are after, the obvious choice would be to make the MC a villain.

no. The first thought after this is where to fit it in because neither history nor life is plain black and plain white and if there is somebody who commited genocide, there probably would be an interesting justification for that. It may not be agreeable, but writing somebody bad for the sole reason of being bad is how you write history school books, not fiction.

The problem with that is that as far as I've seen, villain MCs are just not a thing in web novels. Sure, there are plenty of evil MCs (including many that are not labeled as such), but never an MC that the readers are actually supposed to root against.

There are many mc's that people are not supposed to sympathise with, but yes, rooting against the mc is kind of a rare niche, and even then it is usually implied that the mc is to grow from the point where they started.
Again though, making an evil mc who just is evil is literally the worst thing you can do.

Instead, their evil is always glorified and treated as part of what makes them 'cool'.

If you explain what "cool" is, we might have a conversation, but refer to my 2nd point about justification.

These evil MCs are always used for nothing more than shallow power fantasies (The fact that the power fantasies of so many people seem to involve killing thousands of children is concerning, to say the least).

Maybe, maybe not. Two previous points I highlighted seem like water to me.

An alternative is to make the method of genocide ludicrously contrived so that the MC 'has no other choice'. Like giving them a superweapon that will inevitably kill the enemy civilians along with their army (but not the civilians on our side somehow) and cannot be used to threaten them for some reason.

Make it three points that look like water

Excuse 2 - I don't follow 'human morality' :

A good one at that.

Let's just make the MC a dragon/monster/undead, that way you cannot judge their actions the way you would judge a human's, right?

yes.

The problem here is simple, the MCs of the novels that do this always think and act EXACTLY like a human, except for all the murder. If you ever see a novel be praised for having a character that acts like a REAL dragon/monster/undead, what that means is that the character is a human that will occasionally turn into an amoral murder hobo.

Fleabag, super minion, everybody loves large chests and others.

Naturally, if they didn't, the readers would not be able to self-insert as them to have their genocidal power fantasies.

Refer to above.

When the author feels like they really want to insult the reader's intelligence, they will try to make a point that goes something like "There are so many stories with an MC that massacres monsters without a second thought, now the tables have turned!". As if killing mindless creatures that cannot be reasoned with was the same as a sapient being killing other sapient beings.

Who said anything about mindless creatures? In many fictions many monsters are intelligent, and if they cannot be reasoned with it is fair game. On both sides. I don't see why it must be the mc sending the olive branch when they are the ones who can genocide.

A lot of these """non-human""" MCs are reincarnated humans, and instead of making them struggle with their human memories, most authors will just claim that the transformation into a dragon/monster/undead took away their emotions and empathy, because the best way to make a character interesting is for them to not have emotions I guess.

That'd ve interesting indeed, though I do not recall such stories. Oh, there is Overlord, but it literally has a well-explained mechanism for emotional supression of Ainz and his motivations are very well explained there and fit. And his memories are important, but their utilization is different, but what of it? There is no rule of how to handle certain plot elements.

These characters without emotion or empathy will then proceed to be very emotional and have a lot of empathy toward a group of other """non-human""" characters close to them. They'll just not have empathy towards humans or humanoids, because that's how empathy works, that's why there's no such thing as non-human self-insert characters and why cartoons with talking animals don't exist.

Say Chrisalys, where Antony is a monster ant. He is by no means a murderhobo, but he is very attached to his ant colony family. Because in the story that is just how ants are. What of it?
Let's return to Overlord. Ainz loves his NPC's because they are what amount to his friends' children. He is undead. Undead in-cannon are driven by obsessions or such, so?
I remember a yuri hentai where a hunter was caught by a vampire, got genderbent, eventually turned into a vampire and lived happily ever after with her vampire girlfriend. Oh, she also snacked on her previous life's best friend's kid and could no longer see humans as anything but lifestock, but that is how vampires are in-story.
What I'm trying to say is, that can indeed be how empathy works for non-human sapient creatures. And? If you don't like it just means it isn't suitable for you.
Besides, I will love Jerry the Mouse on TV, but I will kill a rat that appeared in my house. Because that's how empathy works. I can feel for a mouse-like character but it doesn't mean I will feel for a mouse.

But only having empathy for your group of people while not thinking twice about killing those outside of it is something that certain humans have also done.

yes. This too.

And that's the thing, these characters that 'don't have human morality' are not non-human, they are just evil humans, but the narrative will pretend that they are not.

I have explained how they could be different two quotes above.

EXCUSE 3 - This story is light-hearted so my genocide doesn't count:

Never read such stories so no comments.

I will never understand why, but I've seen quite a few novels that are supposed to be 'light-hearted slice of life' include a character that's some powerful being that committed genocide on humans at some point in the past (sometimes even the present), usually worded as "destroyed a kingdom" or "destroyed x cities". Then the story will treat it as a joke and everyone will act as if that never happened.

Oh, oh, I know that! There was that story something something 99999 magic something and the Headmistress there once said something like "you will never understand how it feels to live among you and not accidentally crushing you with an accidental movement"
Not exactly what you are writing about but close enough I guess?

It just drives me crazy every time the main characters run into any villains after that. They'll be like "That evil noble stole money from the orphans! So evil!" And I'll be like "How many orphans did your friend over there murder?!" Or they'll be like "Those humans are so racist" And I'll be like "More racist that the genocidal monster?!"

Firstly, if somebody kidnapped orphans or is racist, but somebody else ended a kingdom, it doesn't change the fact that somebody kidnapped orphans or is racist. Secondly, case by case basis please.
Who knows, maybe there is, in fact, a justification as to why that happened in a story? When God killed every Egyptian kid back in the day nobody gave him a piece of mind. When you kill every kid in a kingdom you somehow become a bad guy, sheesh.
Jk. Still, case by case basis, please.

I don't know, maybe it's just me but this one is actually the one that bothers me the most. With the other two, I can at least understand by some edgy teenagers might think that they are 'deep'. But these attempts to sleight off hand a genocide past me just feel like a personal insult. And it just feels so pointless and like such a bad match for the genre.

Case by case basis.

Because they really are a dime a dozen, but all of these novels will have people talking about how different from all other stories they are.

Will they? I tried to remember if any aforementioned by me novel had people doing that, but nada. If people do talk about how different those novels are, it's usually for reasons other than genocide.

In the real world, it's logical for Putin to terror bombs civilians to wear down the ukrainian economy if he still clings on the sliver of chance of 'winning'.

in real world it makes sense for both sides' elites to playfight and profit off of the conflict at the expense of civillian lives. Do not trust the media. The only sides in any war are the elite class and everybody else.

 

[SailusGebel]

as an aside to this, it's long been shown that despite the theory, in practice it never actually works even with the threat of nuclear weapons use (with the atomic bombings of Japan to end WW2 being the exceptions that prove the rule)

Yes. But people who resort to such things don't know history.

 

[owotrucked]

as an aside to this, it's long been shown that despite the theory, in practice in reality it never actually works even with the threat of nuclear weapons use (with the atomic bombings of Japan to end WW2 being the exceptions that prove the rule)

as a thought experiment, it's an interesting thing to ponder as what is theoretically most efficient and least damaging to one side is extremely harmful to the other yet at the same time, when not subject to hard and solid lines which demarcate the 'tipping point' where success is guaranteed you have the eternal question of value and real effectiveness.

I found this stuff:

Targeting Civilians in War on JSTOR

Accidental harm to civilians in warfare often becomes an occasion for public outrage, from citizens of both the victimized and the victimizing nation. In this v...

www.jstor.org

Accidental harm to civilians in warfare often becomes an occasion for public outrage, from citizens of both the victimized and the victimizing nation. In this vitally important book on a topic of acute concern for anyone interested in military strategy, international security, or human rights, Alexander B. Downes reminds readers that democratic and authoritarian governments alike will sometimes deliberately kill large numbers of civilians as a matter of military strategy. What leads governments to make such a choice?

Downes examines several historical cases: British counterinsurgency tactics during the Boer War, the starvation blockade used by the Allies against Germany in World War I, Axis and Allied bombing campaigns in World War II, and ethnic cleansing in the Palestine War. He concludes that governments decide to target civilian populations for two main reasons-desperation to reduce their own military casualties or avert defeat, or a desire to seize and annex enemy territory. When a state's military fortunes take a turn for the worse, he finds, civilians are more likely to be declared legitimate targets to coerce the enemy state to give up. When territorial conquest and annexation are the aims of warfare, the population of the disputed land is viewed as a threat and the aggressor state may target those civilians to remove them. Democracies historically have proven especially likely to target civilians in desperate circumstances.

I think targeting civilians is mostly a desperation strategy from the losing side, maybe that's why it's not really effective?

Like because they were already losing and couldn't turn the tides over. Economy lags behind the physical crisis, and if the economy is resilient, it won't affect army at all within the war duration.

Note: IRL wars are often motivated by gains. So targeting civilians doesn't sound very smart from the winning side. If it's motivated by strictly survival and eradication, maybe targeting civilians from the start is realistic convincing move.

 

[J_Chemist]

I WOULD LIKE TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE.

The idea of "genocide" and "mass murder" or "mass casualties" is not one and the same. By definition, "genocide is the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group". Thus, killing off a set of people must be done with the motivation/intent that can be linked to one of those types/subjects.

So, if I kill 100 people, it's just mass murder. But if I kill them because of their religion and say I want to kill every person that goes to that church, then it's genocide. There are plenty of examples of IRL genocides on Google that I am going to assume you are either aware of or have the capacity to go look on your own time of your own volition.

EXCUSE 1:

In writing, the need for genocide is indeed generally validated by one of three ways, two of which you've described.

• There's a severe and real risk to my loved ones.
• There's a severe and real risk to myself.
• I need to do this to achieve a goal.

Most authors will utilize one of the first two in order to commit their genocides. As you mentioned in your opening post, it's an easy sort of "gimme". The problem, as you also said, is that most of these individuals are so strong that the threat isn't a real threat, as they could honestly squash said enemy at any time. But, it's a perceived threat. Perception is reality and individuals are known to act on these perceptions without much thought. Why? Because we're lazy and it's easy.

The issue becomes then the "why". Why bother? If the MC is so strong, why do anything at all? Because generally in these instances, the MC has developed their power through a number of trials and understands the idea that they must act first rather than react. By being proactive in their attack of the enemy, they can safely protect their loved ones without getting them involved and without the headache of having to save/help them later on if they wait.

Authors usually fail to describe things this way or fail to verbalize it because either they themselves don't realize it, or they do it purposefully to keep the Reader attached to the MC. Maybe the MC doesn't make these thoughts out loud or the world is developed in such a way that it's an inevitable occurrence. Either way, they either make the move and do the killing or they don't and someone they care for gets hurt.

Threatening people is one way to alleviate having to fight them but in the case of most bad guys, intimidation only goes so far. If the group is developed enough to give the MC, who's OP, enough pause to warrant attention, then intimidation isn't going to help. The villain will always try to find the MC's Achilles heel and then proceed to exploit it. And why wouldn't they? They're the bad guy for a reason.


The third option is more rare as it's something that by this point is likely either justifiable for the MC to become stronger/continue to develop, or it's a turning point in the story. Genocide isn't a "good" thing. Unless it's of a truly vile threat that everyone in the story's universe agrees can be killed without issue, then genocide of any kind of enemy will bring about a negative connotation. Thus, this option is usually only for the MC's who are fighting hundreds of monsters/demons or are leveling up and need a shit ton of EXP. It's usually not negatively motivated but needs to happen for progress. Hence why either it's not seen often or we actually don't notice it.

What is it, the manga where the chick killed a million slimes to level up or whatever? That was genocide of slimes, but no one batted an eye. Why? Because they're slimes and it was in a game world.

But, as I mentioned, there's also the potential for this to be a turning point. Maybe the MC has already shown signs of being an anti-hero, and now genocide is on the table to achieve some sort of end. If he follows through, he's gonna have to carry that weight. If not, maybe a portion of the people will die anyways or whatever event is about to happen may or may not still happen. Instances like this where the MC is cornered, they make a decision. Some will slap the button and kill people. Others won't and will have to pay the price of that choice, whatever it may be.

EXCUSE 2:
Morality is always a factor in genocide and any negative action we perceive to the negative. We always have to consider the "why", the intent, the motivation, the background of the MC, the circumstances, and the outcome that may or may not happen. Naturally, non-human MCs can more easily justify mass murder because they don't care about humans, regardless of whether they are an ex-human or not. Their emotions and motivations will always be different.

Failing to accept that fact pushes your own burdens on the MC that they don't have to follow. It's like adding a rule at the bottom of a test but saying it's an opinion based rule that won't affect the score- no one cares but you and no one taking the test has to or will care about it. Humans who become non-humans no longer have to follow the human rules. Why? Because they aren't human anymore.

EXCUSE 3:
Light-hearted genocide is indeed less of a genocide problem and more of a scale issue. This one is less trying to downplay the genocide bit and more failing to understand the scale of what the character did or what actually happened. Of course, it's still pretty shit on the author to not pay attention to these details and makes the characters look silly but that's the honest answer. The genocide isn't the problem, though.


IN CONCLUSION: Genocide is a skill issue authors fail to utilize properly in the sense that they drop the ball on either using the tool correctly, or they fuck up the impacts on the characters. As the reader, it's a skill issue because either you're taking it too seriously or maybe you missed the point of what it's in there.

Get good and maybe you wouldn't suffer so much. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

 

[TotallyHuman]

Note: IRL wars are often motivated by gains. So targeting civilians doesn't sound very smart from the winning side. If it's motivated by strictly survival and eradication, maybe targeting civilians from the start is realistic convincing move.

It can also work when you target your civilians. Sending the poor to war, for example. It makes sense from that perspective.

That was genocide of slimes, but no one batted an eye.

but there were reprecussions. Two slimes evolved and almost killed her and then, sigh, became her daughters.

 

[owotrucked]

EXCUSE 1:

Most authors will utilize one of the first two in order to commit their genocides. As you mentioned in your opening post, it's an easy sort of "gimme". The problem, as you also said, is that most of these individuals are so strong that the threat isn't a real threat, as they could honestly squash said enemy at any time. But, it's a perceived threat. Perception is reality and individuals are known to act on these perceptions without much thought. Why? Because we're lazy and it's easy.

I think the problem of the original post is that some author write as if genocide is obviously correct answer, and the reader thinks that it's obviously insane and absurd. It's just a lack of exploration and expliciting the values of each parties.

Whether the protagonist choose violence or negotiation, authors need to explore deeply the reasoning and emotions that went into the decisions.

Even if the protagonist is incredibly powerful, why would they go through the hassle to actually try to co-exist with people? Like, do you actually let mosquitoes live with you in peace? If so, why? How do the people differ from mosquitoes, and how does the trust is built?

So actually, there's never an obvious choice. Any option can make sense, that's why characterization is needed.

EXCUSE 2:
Naturally, non-human MCs can more easily justify mass murder because they don't care about humans, regardless of whether they are an ex-human or not. Their emotions and motivations will always be different.

Failing to accept that fact pushes your own burdens on the MC that they don't have to follow. It's like adding a rule at the bottom of a test but saying it's an opinion based rule that won't affect the score- no one cares but you and no one taking the test has to or will care about it. Humans who become non-humans no longer have to follow the human rules. Why? Because they aren't human anymore.

I agree, and it's very hard for readers to actually understand a foreign emotional make-up. And it can be entertaining to have psychologically deranged human MC too. I think reader get it or they don't, it's really hard to convey.

IN CONCLUSION: Genocide is a skill issue authors fail to utilize properly in the sense that they drop the ball on either using the tool correctly, or they fuck up the impacts on the characters. As the reader, it's a skill issue because either you're taking it too seriously or maybe you missed the point of what it's in there.

Get good and maybe you wouldn't suffer so much. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

Yeah, it's true for any decision fictional characters take.

It can also work when you target your civilians. Sending the poor to war, for example. It makes sense from that perspective.

Save private hobo

 

[M.G.Driver]

Damn.

You should all stop calling this a website for writers.

The responses to this thread have made it obvious that Scribble Hub will never be anything more than a dumping ground for morally repugnant garbage

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

To OP, thank you for taking time and thought into writing your original post. It is unfortunate that not everyone appreciates such effort.

There is a reason that the forum rules are against derailing of serious topics. Even if such a rule does not prevent it from happening. People that spend a lot of time on the forum tend to use it like social media and get very comfortable and forget when to seperate serious and silly. I have made such errors myself.

I really should just leave scribble hub, nobody here seems to actually care about writing.

I disagree. Since I've come to this site I have learned a lot about writing and just how hard it can be. I have also found a community that I enjoy spending time with. As a place for amateur writers especially, do not be surprised when people act like amateurs.

Trolls and shitposts are common across the internet, this place is no exception. Take it as an opportunity to become stronger and recognize nonsense for what it is.

 

[georgelee5786]

ew, genocide. Xenocide is better

You should all stop calling this a website for writers.

The responses to this thread have made it obvious that Scribble Hub will never be anything more than a dumping ground for morally repugnant garbage

hehehe....HAHAHAHA, that's a compliment here.