Most of the time when yuri and darksmash say something it ends up being correct, and here
both of them agree with the downgrade so list me as neutral on everything leaning towards agreement, to make sure I don’t appear like some1 who’s just arguing for the sake of the verse being stronk
tier 4 = stronk
But I still do have some questions for darksmash’s response:
“The reason they say that afterlife's existence proves that the world is "fictional" is quite clearly stated:
Afterlife's existence means death inside the world isn't real, and characters coming back implies someone is controlling it from outside, meaning the world isn't real but has an illusory meaning. Never once is it stated that Afterlife's existence proves the world is fictional because afterlife sees the world as fiction.”
So if I understand this correctly your saying that the r>f stuff is just the characters interpretation of fictional death, that since death in the real world is fake and that the world being real or not only depends on humanity observing it or not.
but it’s stated that this death does not exist within the afterlife;
“This was a world where they did not die and could not die” - chap 3 volume 13
Yet the afterlife is also fictional:
"If the world we lived in was fictional、then the afterlife is also fictional” - chap 3 volume 13
so essentially even without the “fictional death” we see the afterlife being fictional.
also it being “less real” isn’t exactly contradictory to the r>f, obviously if it was ONLY stated to be “less real” then it wouldn’t warrant r>f, but it can be “less real” and fiction at the same time. No?
@Darksmash
