>>25271555You don't need to believe anything here or there. In fact they're pretty much seperate issues. That's the beauty of this affair in particular, all of us are just armchair generals commenting on something we can't directly affect.
The first discussion is a mechanical one. All people are saying is that it's simple cause and effect; you do more parasocial pandering, you get more crazy people. Do you believe this is true?
If you do, then obviously it follows that if you do less parasocial pandering, you get less crazy people. Yay.
If you don't, then carry on. If it turns out this theory is wrong, you, too, get less crazy people. Yay.
But in the event the theory is correct, and you carry on pandering, then you get more crazy people. Oh no.
For some reason that is most likely partially due to the confusion of 'responsibility', 'moral agency', 'fault' and other such terms in English being used interchangeably, other people are carrying on a completely seperate argument as to who is to 'blame'. But the fact is that it doesn't really matter, because the issue at hand for the former argument is reducing harassment, stalking, murderous instincts, et cetera. And deciding who bears moral responsibility does not alter this problem in the slightest. Let us say the streamer is 100% to blame. Okay, then they have to change their behavior. Let us decide the crazy people are 100% to blame. Okay, then surely they will change - hahahahahahahaha.
So either the crazy, irrational, emotionally immature, gullible schizos can spontaneously see the light, or the vtuber can do things - or not do things - to bleed them off them. Which side do you think is more likely to move first?
