>>16205995Well if we're talking reality, things that have physical, tangible answers, there's only two answers: a thing exists, or it doesn't.
When you arrive at that conclusion, it become a mental question again, as to how someone feels about a thing.
After people discuss things, they'll come to their conclusions about realities and be settled in time. Once people are settled, they move to the next thing.
Timeloops tend to be bad because the person doing them is already settled, and so is the person they're trying to talk to about it. But they simply don't accept the other person's conclusion. Timeloops are someone denying someone else's right to their own conclusion, essentially. And it applies on a group level; timeloops are typically when a minority is dissatisfied with a conclusion settled on by a majority, and so they try and kick the dust up to get people to deny themselves, mentally, and follow them instead.
Here's an example. IRyS debuted. This is physical reality; IRyS is. This is true. Then we move to the mental phase. I decide that I love IRyS; another anon decides that he hates her. We debate each other on this; in the end, we settle our ideas and come to our own conclusions. The conversation is over, and we move on.
A timeloop would occur when the anon who hates her comes back to me tomorrow to contest my conclusion, and accuse me of not understanding why I should hate her, when I love her. He likely understands that I have settled my conclusion, but feels it is illegitimate. So he attempts to convince me again, and now we are on a bad loop.
Does that make sense? At the end of the day, timeloops are bad because they can't realistically end in a new outcome.
