Sociopath Community

The story has a lot of holes beyond the obvious moralizing.

Snake deliberately puts his bare foot in front of the dog after removing his boot, so the escalation isn't as straightforward as the story makes it sound. He then breaks its jaw, kicks it across the room, and later kills it, yet the story never establishes why killing the dog became necessary after it was already incapacitated. “Raiden asked for help” also somehow becomes “Raiden requested euthanasia,” which isn't actually established.

The legal part is even more convenient. CCTV proving that Raiden started the attack wouldn't automatically establish that everything Snake did afterward was legally justified. The story also jumps from “found not guilty” to Snake being awarded $20,220.99 without explaining the separate civil claim, what the damages were, or where that exact figure came from.

Then the story keeps piling consequences onto Raiden: his dog dies, he loses the case, goes insane, gets imprisoned, earns below minimum wage, and has his wages sent to Snake. None of that follows naturally from the original incident. It reads less like a coherent chain of consequences and more like a punishment fantasy where the antagonist keeps getting worse things added to his fate.

And that's probably the biggest structural issue. “Some say Snake is worse” briefly acknowledges moral ambiguity, but the story has already constructed everything so Snake gets justified, rewarded, and vindicated while Raiden gets increasingly humiliated. The moral language about the Golden Rule and people “getting what's coming” feels added afterward to justify the outcome rather than something the story actually demonstrates.

Dragoonback said: 

The story has a lot of holes beyond the obvious moralizing.

Hm.

Snake deliberately puts his bare foot in front of the dog after removing his boot, so the escalation isn't as straightforward as the story makes it sound.

Yes he did.

He then breaks its jaw, kicks it across the room, and later kills it, yet the story never establishes why killing the dog became necessary after it was already incapacitated. “Raiden asked for help” also somehow becomes “Raiden requested euthanasia,” which isn't actually established.

Sure it was. Raiden was flat broke and couldn't afford veterinary care. The chihuahua just got it's face smashed and and it got punted like a football into a concrete wall. It still being alive was a miracle. The dog was essentially shattered and would've suffered till it was dead.

Raiden asked Snake for help cause he never had the nerve to do anything himself.

The legal part is even more convenient.

Hmnes.

CCTV proving that Raiden started the attack wouldn't automatically establish that everything Snake did afterward was legally justified. The story also jumps from “found not guilty” to Snake being awarded $20,220.99 without explaining the separate civil claim, what the damages were, or where that exact figure came from.

It was explained that Snake was counter suing for legal expenses. Going to court is that much of a financial strain. Being presumed innocent would've then defaulted to awading the defendant.  

Then the story keeps piling consequences onto Raiden: his dog dies, he loses the case, goes insane, gets imprisoned, earns below minimum wage, and has his wages sent to Snake. None of that follows naturally from the original incident. It reads less like a coherent chain of consequences and more like a punishment fantasy where the antagonist keeps getting worse things added to his fate.

Well Raiden had a meltdown and did some dumb shit on the side and got locked up. He was broke you see, and couldn't afford to pay Snake or his Lawyer. What Raiden did that got himself locked up is only in the director's cut.

And that's probably the biggest structural issue. “Some say Snake is worse” briefly acknowledges moral ambiguity, but the story has already constructed everything so Snake gets justified, rewarded, and vindicated while Raiden gets increasingly humiliated. The moral language about the Golden Rule and people “getting what's coming” feels added afterward to justify the outcome rather than something the story actually demonstrates.

 Hey. Everyone will have mixed feelings about what happened. 

There's the readers imagination too, where the reader may assume the CCTV footage doesn't show Shake removing his boot, because the table was in the way. 

The Golden Rule falls on neither Snake or Raiden, however, if Raiden did follow it, none of this would've happened in the first place. Some would say Snake's actions taught Raiden a valuable lesson. but like the narrator said.... Some, never learn. 

Those explanations aren't actually established by the story. You're adding details afterward to close the holes I pointed out.

The original story doesn't establish that the dog was necessarily beyond recovery, that Raiden explicitly asked Snake to euthanize it, that the CCTV failed to show Snake removing his boot, or that Raiden later committed some separate crime that landed him in prison. Saying those things are in a “director's cut” doesn't fix the original narrative. It just means important information was omitted.

Raiden asking Snake for help also doesn't automatically mean he asked him to kill the dog. And being found not guilty doesn't automatically mean the defendant is awarded damages or legal expenses. That's a separate issue that the story never properly establishes.

The appeal to the reader's imagination doesn't solve this either. If an important detail is necessary to make the story work, the story needs to establish it rather than asking the reader to invent it afterward. CCTV showing that Raiden started the attack also doesn't, by itself, establish that everything Snake did afterward was necessary or justified.

The characterization is also extremely strange. Raiden is written almost entirely as a caricature of everything you're portraying negatively, while Snake is repeatedly given convenient justifications for what he does. Given your existing hostility toward Raiden, it reads more like a vehicle for attacking him than a neutral scenario. That doesn't make the characterization automatically false, but the story doesn't establish it well enough for the reader to simply accept it.

And the “valuable lesson” point is actually consistent with what I've been criticizing elsewhere. You're assuming that severe suffering teaches a necessary lesson, but the story never establishes that Raiden actually learned anything, that the suffering was necessary, or that the level of punishment was justified. “Some never learn” doesn't prove that punishment produces learning. It just gives the punishment a moral justification after the fact.

Dragoonback said: 

Those explanations aren't actually established by the story. You're adding details afterward to close the holes I pointed out.

Everything I replied to is referenced in the story.

The original story doesn't establish that the dog was necessarily beyond recovery, that Raiden explicitly asked Snake to euthanize it, that the CCTV failed to show Snake removing his boot, or that Raiden later committed some separate crime that landed him in prison. Saying those things are in a “director's cut” doesn't fix the original narrative. It just means important information was omitted.

"Solid Snake possesses low-level superhuman strength, incredible durability, and peak tactical genius. As a genetically engineered clone of Big Boss, his physical feats far exceed normal human limits, allowing him to overpower elite soldiers, survive extreme trauma, and defeat towering mechanical threats even while aging rapidly into an old man."

- Raw Power: Breaks solid iron handcuffs by flexing, lifts and wields heavy military equipment like miniaturized railguns, and physically restrains super-powered foes like Vamp.

- Striking & Combat: Fights toe-to-toe with cyborg ninja Gray Fox (who can block and survive massive explosions) and overpowers legendary soldiers like Big Boss and Liquid Snake.

- Powerscale metrics place his lifting output in the Class M tier, comparable to heavy-duty feats demonstrated by Big Boss."

The list goes on. If Snake were real, he'd easily be the strongest man in the world. It was a miracle Chewy was still alive, he was certainly gonna die. But yeah, Chewy got punted by that guy. After begging Snake for help, Snake did the humane thing and ended Chewy's suffering. 

In a room a video camera would be mounted on the ceiling in a corner, a shot from above wouldn't be able to see under the table. Some readers might assume Snake would've known this. but it doesn't matter if he did or not. (This paragraph isn't adding to the story)

Raiden asking Snake for help also doesn't automatically mean he asked him to kill the dog.

He wouldn't be asking Snake to heal the dog either.

And being found not guilty doesn't automatically mean the defendant is awarded damages or legal expenses. That's a separate issue that the story never properly establishes.

For the 3rd time. Snake was counter suing. 

"When a defendant counter-sues the plaintiff in the same lawsuit, it is called a counterclaim. Both the original claim and the counter-claim are typically heard and decided together in the same court proceeding to save time and money."

The appeal to the reader's imagination doesn't solve this either. If an important detail is necessary to make the story work, the story needs to establish it rather than asking the reader to invent it afterward. CCTV showing that Raiden started the attack also doesn't, by itself, establish that everything Snake did afterward was necessary or justified.

Snake is a government weapon with instincts. He claimed he was triggered by first blood so he acted in self defense as he was made to do. Snake also suggested it wouldn't be fair to handle the bill to help Raiden's dog, he simply wouldn't do it. Fitting the bill is a bit of a fumbled claim though, the dog wouldn't survive a trip to the animal hospital. It would've needed a titanium skeleton replacement. Too expensive and time consuming. Snake ended up helping Raiden and Chewy, God bless his soul. 

The characterization is also extremely strange. Raiden is written almost entirely as a caricature of everything you're portraying negatively, while Snake is repeatedly given convenient justifications for what he does.

In court there was no solid proof that Snake did it on purpose. Raiden chose to train a vicious animal and unleash it on someone. What Snake did is extremely bewildering and way over the top, and he got away with it. Raiden's foolery is what ended up ruining his life. It is by all means a double negative. The camera captured Raiden's malice but failed to showcase Snake's spite.

Snake also lied in court as to the cause of him punting Chewy. Not making this up now, cause he clearly set the dog up to draw first blood.  

Given your existing hostility toward Raiden, it reads more like a vehicle for attacking him than a neutral scenario.

Raiden and Snake are placeholders actually. It's more fun to use them than 2 random Joes. And yes I favor Snake. lol.

That doesn't make the characterization automatically false, but the story doesn't establish it well enough for the reader to simply accept it.

Some will accept it, some won't. The host points this out before closing the show. What Raiden did wasn't very nice either, he ended up getting punked, cause Snake was worse. You're left wanting Justice for Raiden. 

And the “valuable lesson” point is actually consistent with what I've been criticizing elsewhere. You're assuming that severe suffering teaches a necessary lesson, but the story never establishes that Raiden actually learned anything, that the suffering was necessary, or that the level of punishment was justified. “Some never learn” doesn't prove that punishment produces learning. It just gives the punishment a moral justification after the fact.

Correct. The story doesn't establish if Raiden learned anything. Instead the host turns to the viewers and calls out some of the divided feedback.  

As the executive writer and producer of Tales From the Creep. I think it would be insane if Raiden got a new dog and trained it to attack people again. This is certainly a hard lesson. There are readers who'd think that's a bad idea, and maybe.... Some of you would want to see him come up with more malicious ideas. While Snake took it too far, I think technically he's given Raiden the opportunity to become a better person.

.

.

.

For shits and giggles took some time to make my own Snake.

This story is too hard, so I'll have to make something milder. Can't kill Raiden's dog on youtube. I think Snake and Raiden taking digs at one another is marketable. 

That actually confirms several of the problems I pointed out rather than resolving them.

You admit that you favor Snake, that Raiden and Snake are placeholders you chose because the conflict is entertaining, that Snake deliberately set the dog up to draw first blood, and that Snake lied in court about why he punted it. You also admit that what Snake did was “way over the top.” So the story isn't really presenting a neutral case of justified self-defense. It's a deliberately biased scenario where the character you favor provokes the situation, lies about it, and still gets rewarded.

The CCTV explanation doesn't fix that either. You now acknowledge that the camera failed to capture Snake's spite, meaning the fictional court didn't have the full evidence. That actually makes the outcome less convincing, not more. A camera showing Raiden's aggression doesn't prove that everything Snake did afterward was justified, especially when you say Snake deliberately provoked the dog and lied about it.

You're also adding a lot of information that wasn't established in the original story: the dog's supposed inevitability of death, the camera angle, the details of the counterclaim, and the idea that Raiden was secretly convicted of something else. Those additions can explain the story after the fact, but they don't change the fact that the original version left major gaps. Snake's abilities are largely irrelevant to the criticism. Whether he's an ordinary man or a superhuman government weapon doesn't establish that his actions were necessary, justified, or educational.

And the “hard lesson” argument still doesn't follow. You explicitly admit that the story doesn't establish whether Raiden learned anything. Giving someone an “opportunity to become a better person” is not the same as showing that extreme punishment actually taught them anything. Severe suffering doesn't inherently become justified or educational just because you call it a lesson.

So I think my original criticism still stands. The story is structured around a character you openly admit favoring, and the punishment keeps escalating until it becomes more like a revenge fantasy than a demonstration of justice or the Golden Rule.