Battle Through the Heavens Season 5 Episode 217 Indonesia, English Sub

I really wish the worst to the studio for adapting this abomination of what they call a “donghua.” fuck the movie too it will be trash as well.
They censor, change and skip so many good chapters from the novel. I would rate this a -1/5 star if I could.
May the people responsible for this donghua and their families all get tortured, raped, and die horrible deaths never to reincarnate again . 
May they all suffer eternal damnation in hell. 
And the oblivious retards in here who are still defending this crap deserve the same. go jump off a bridge and kys

btth’s fall truly needs to be studied

I don’t give a damn fuck about this donghua, xiao yan, gu(literally poop) xun’er or anyone else i only came here to see xiao yi xian
This donghua is stuck so low, why isn’t it’s rating gone to minus already😂
See him(xiao yan) what do you even expect from him, he was singing xun’ers name like her pet just 2-3 episode before than this one totally forgot that he have a father that he have to save and now he is getting emotional, i mean what the fuck is in his brain, noodles ? Or xun’ers milk
Yes her milk(breast milk) you are right about that

after the Three Year Agreement Arc ended everything went downhill, I was even hyped after seeing the Season 1 Xiao Yan and it says a lot about the quality of the early seasons even with the old graphics.

I’ve expanded this into a roughly 2,000-word essay, focusing on the hypocrisy, hostility, sexual insults, threats of violence, terrorism references, personal attacks and people who use criticism of BTTH as an excuse to harass its viewers.
The essay distinguishes legitimate criticism of a donghua from abusive behaviour, while also acknowledging that people defending the series should not resort to the same behaviour.

The Hypocrisy of BTTH Haters: When Disliking a Donghua Becomes an Obsession with Harassing Its ViewersThere is nothing wrong with disliking Battle Through the Heavens (BTTH). Everyone has different preferences, expectations and opinions when it comes to entertainment. Some viewers may be disappointed with the animation, others may dislike the adaptation choices, and some may believe that the studio has unnecessarily changed, censored or skipped important scenes from the original novel. These are legitimate opinions, and everyone has the right to express them.
However, there is a significant difference between criticising a donghua and deliberately visiting its episode discussions to attack the series, insult its viewers and provoke arguments. At some point, criticism stops being criticism and becomes an obsession with expressing hatred. This is particularly strange when certain individuals repeatedly appear in the comment sections of a series they claim to dislike, sometimes even admitting that they no longer watch it.
If you genuinely dislike BTTH, why continue returning to its episode discussions? If you believe the adaptation is terrible, you are free to stop watching. If you believe the studio has ruined the original story, you can explain why. If you think another donghua is better, you can spend your time discussing that instead. Nobody is forcing you to watch BTTH, just as nobody is forcing you to participate in its comment sections.
Yet some individuals seem more interested in making sure everyone knows how much they hate the series than actually discussing anything meaningful about it.

The Contradiction of Telling Others to Ignore CommentsOne particularly interesting contradiction appears when people tell others that they have the choice not to read comments, as though that somehow justifies whatever they themselves choose to write.
One commenter argued that nobody was forcing another person to read offensive comments. On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable statement. People can choose what they read, which discussions they participate in and which comments they ignore.
However, the same commenter immediately followed that argument with a homophobic slur and a personal insult, expressing extreme hatred towards the person they were responding to.
Does that not contradict the very argument being presented?
If everyone has the freedom to ignore something they dislike, then surely everyone also has the freedom to disagree with offensive comments. The choice not to read something does not give another person permission to insult, threaten or harass others without criticism.
You cannot demand that people ignore your behaviour while simultaneously attacking them for expressing disagreement. You cannot present yourself as someone defending freedom of expression while using that freedom to demean other people.
The argument becomes even less convincing when the person making it is actively participating in the same hostile environment they claim others should simply ignore.
Freedom of expression is not freedom from criticism. If you choose to post something publicly, other people are equally entitled to respond. That does not mean every response will be pleasant, but disagreement is a normal part of an open discussion.

Personal Attacks Are Not ArgumentsAnother disturbing aspect of these discussions is how quickly certain commenters abandon the actual subject and begin attacking someone’s personal circumstances.
Instead of discussing BTTH, its production, its story or its adaptation, they ask whether someone is revealing their personal history, question who asked about their life, call them a special snowflake, and accuse them of behaving like a crying child.
Some even tell people to grow up, become a man or stop seeking attention.
But what exactly does any of this contribute to a discussion about a donghua?
If someone expresses dissatisfaction with the behaviour in a comment section, responding by ridiculing their personal circumstances does not address the original concern. It simply changes the subject from the behaviour being discussed to an attempt to embarrass the person raising the issue.
There is also a strange irony in telling someone to grow up while behaving aggressively over an entertainment discussion.
Maturity is not demonstrated by how aggressively someone can insult another person. It is demonstrated by the ability to disagree without resorting to personal attacks.
You can disagree with someone’s opinion without knowing anything about their background. You can challenge their argument without making assumptions about their personal life. And you can express your frustration without treating another human being as a target for humiliation.
Calling someone childish does not automatically make you mature.

When Criticism Turns into Sexual Violence and ThreatsPerhaps the most disturbing comments are those that go beyond ordinary insults and begin wishing horrific things upon people.
One commenter expressed a desire for the studio, its employees and their families to be tortured, raped and killed. The same comment also suggested that viewers defending the donghua deserved similar treatment and included an instruction to commit suicide.
Another commenter responded with a threat involving sexualised violence and a cattle prod, while bringing up the CIA in an attempt to intimidate or mock the person being addressed.
These statements are particularly concerning because they have absolutely nothing to do with whether BTTH is a good or bad adaptation.
You can dislike the studio’s decisions. You can believe the animation has declined. You can be disappointed that certain novel chapters were skipped. You can even give the series the lowest possible rating.
But why bring rape, torture, death and suicide into an argument about an animated series?
What does wishing sexual violence upon someone’s family have to do with animation quality?
What does telling viewers to kill themselves contribute to a discussion about storytelling?
Nothing.
These are not meaningful criticisms. They are expressions of hostility directed at real people over a fictional production.
Sexual violence should never be treated as an ordinary insult or a convenient way to express frustration. Rape is a serious form of violence that affects real people. Using it as a threat or wishing it upon someone because of their entertainment preferences demonstrates an extraordinary lack of judgment.
The same applies to threats involving terrorism, physical violence or other forms of harm. These subjects should not be casually introduced into discussions about fictional characters and animation.
There is a difference between saying that a production is terrible and expressing a desire for the people responsible to experience horrific violence.
One is criticism. The other is abusive behaviour.

The Hypocrisy of Accusing Others While Doing the Same ThingAnother recurring problem is the tendency to accuse other people of hypocrisy while refusing to examine one’s own conduct.
Some commenters accuse others of being toxic, immature or hypocritical, but their own responses contain the same behaviour they claim to oppose.
They complain about offensive language while using offensive language themselves. They criticise personal attacks while making personal attacks. They accuse others of being childish while throwing insults into the discussion. They tell people to stop crying while continuing to argue aggressively.
This creates a cycle in which nobody is interested in addressing the actual issue anymore.
Instead, every response becomes an opportunity to find another insult, invent another accusation or make another attempt to humiliate someone.
If you genuinely believe that sexual insults, threats and personal attacks are unacceptable, then apply that standard consistently. Do not suddenly abandon your principles because someone disagrees with you.
It is not convincing to condemn toxic behaviour in one comment and reproduce it in the next.
The same standard should apply to BTTH supporters. Defending a series does not give anyone permission to threaten critics or insult their families. If fans respond to hostility with more hostility, they contribute to the very environment they are complaining about.
Nobody becomes morally superior simply because they are defending their favourite show.
The issue is the behaviour itself, regardless of which side is responsible.

Hiding Behind Usernames and ProvocationThere is also something particularly immature about deliberately using usernames designed to provoke, impersonate or antagonise other commenters.
Names such as “BTTH hater” and other variations that openly advertise hostility may be intended to attract attention, but when combined with repeated insults and aggressive comments, they become part of a pattern of deliberate provocation.
A username should not be a substitute for an argument.
If your entire online identity revolves around expressing hatred towards a particular donghua, what exactly are you contributing to the community?
Some people seem to believe that using a different name, imitating another commenter or creating an account specifically to provoke others makes their behaviour entertaining. In reality, it makes the discussion increasingly difficult for ordinary viewers who simply want to discuss the latest episode.
There is nothing particularly impressive about hiding behind an anonymous username to insult strangers.
If your criticism is valid, it should stand on its own merits. It should not require personal attacks, impersonation or deliberately offensive usernames to attract attention.

You Do Not Have to Like BTTH, but You Should Respect Other ViewersOne thing that certain people seem unable to understand is that enjoying a series does not require believing that it is perfect.
Someone can acknowledge that BTTH has adaptation problems and still enjoy watching it. Someone can dislike the studio’s decision to skip certain novel scenes while appreciating the animation, characters, music and action sequences.
Long-time viewers may have followed Xiao Yan’s journey for years. They may have developed an attachment to the characters and the fictional world. They may look forward to every new episode because the series has become part of their entertainment routine.
That does not make them stupid, blind fans or people who deserve abuse.
People have different reasons for enjoying entertainment. You do not need to understand those reasons, and you certainly do not need to agree with them.
The same principle applies in reverse. BTTH supporters should not demand that everyone praise the adaptation. Critics should be able to express disappointment without being attacked.
A healthy discussion allows both sides to exist.
What should not be normalised is the idea that someone must endure sexual insults, threats or harassment simply because they decided to watch and enjoy a particular donghua.
Nobody should have to defend their personal entertainment preferences against threats of violence.

A Comment Section Is Not a Personal BattlefieldAn episode discussion should be a place where viewers can share their reactions, discuss important scenes, compare the adaptation with the novel and exchange opinions.
It should not become a battlefield where people compete to produce the most offensive comment.
If you dislike an episode, explain what you dislike. If you believe the studio has made poor decisions, discuss those decisions. If you think the original novel was handled badly, explain which parts were changed or omitted.
There is plenty to discuss without dragging unrelated personal insults, sexual violence, terrorism and threats into the conversation.
Even when someone writes an extremely negative review, there is still a distinction between discussing a fictional production and wishing real-world suffering upon the people associated with it.
A negative opinion does not automatically make someone toxic. However, repeatedly targeting viewers, making threats and using sexual violence as an insult cannot reasonably be defended as ordinary criticism.
People should be able to recognise that distinction.

Final Thoughts: If You Hate It, Move OnUltimately, nobody is forcing anyone to watch Battle Through the Heavens.
If you believe the series has deteriorated beyond recognition, stop watching. If you think the studio has ruined the adaptation, explain your reasons and move on. If you no longer enjoy the story, find another donghua that meets your expectations.
There are countless other series available.
But repeatedly returning to the episode discussions of something you claim to hate, solely to insult the production and attack the people watching it, raises questions about your actual intentions.
Are you genuinely interested in discussing animation, or are you simply looking for an argument?
Are you trying to offer criticism, or do you just want to provoke people?
And if you believe other people should ignore comments they dislike, why are you unable to follow that same principle yourself?
You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to dislike BTTH, criticise its adaptation, give it a negative rating or stop watching altogether. Nobody owes the series unconditional support.
However, viewers are equally entitled to enjoy it without being subjected to personal abuse.
Criticism does not require homophobic insults. Disappointment does not require rape threats. Disliking a studio does not justify wishing violence upon its employees and their families. Disagreeing with viewers does not justify telling them to end their lives.
If you cannot discuss a donghua without bringing those things into the conversation, perhaps the problem is no longer the donghua.
You pathetic, attention-starved hypocrites have completely lost the ability to distinguish criticism from harassment. You parade yourselves around as if your hatred of a fictional donghua makes you intellectually superior, when all you have demonstrated is an embarrassing inability to participate in an ordinary discussion without resorting to sexual threats, rape references, terrorism fantasies, death wishes and disgusting attacks against complete strangers and their families.
You are not critics. You are not exposing some great injustice. You are not making yourselves look clever, intimidating or powerful. You are making yourselves look like the absolute bottom of an online discussion: people so desperate for attention and confrontation that they have to drag sexual violence, threats and other people’s suffering into an argument about an animated series. What an utterly pathetic thing to build your online identity around.
If your strongest contribution to a discussion about BTTH is wishing rape, torture, death or terrorism upon people, then you have nothing meaningful to contribute in the first place. Your opinions about the animation, studio and adaptation become irrelevant the moment you decide that innocent viewers and their families deserve violence simply because they disagree with you.
Stop pretending that you are defending freedom of expression when you cannot even demonstrate basic respect for other people’s right to enjoy something you dislike. Stop preaching about ignoring comments when you are the ones repeatedly returning to provoke arguments. Stop calling others hypocrites when your own comments demonstrate exactly the behaviour you claim to condemn. And stop hiding behind deliberately provocative usernames as though an anonymous account somehow makes your conduct less pathetic.
You are free to hate BTTH. But nobody needs to tolerate your disgusting behaviour. If all you have to offer is sexual abuse, rape fantasies, terrorism references and threats against strangers.2w

The Cowardly Alliance of Anonymous Virgin Gooners
In the vast world of the internet, countless people gather beneath the same skies, each carrying their own opinions, grudges and ambitions. Some speak openly, some remain silent, and others hide behind the protection of an anonymous name, believing that a concealed identity grants them the authority to behave however they please.
Among them exists a peculiar breed of individuals. They possess neither the courage to confront someone honestly nor the discipline to disagree without resorting to personal attacks. Yet, when gathered in sufficient numbers, they suddenly behave as though they have ascended to some higher realm of righteousness.
One such individual may appear alone at first, leaving behind a mocking comment or a deliberately provocative username. Then another arrives. A third follows. Before long, several accounts begin directing their attention towards one person, repeating insults and adding their voices to the growing commotion.
Some even construct usernames around another person’s username, using it as a tool for ridicule and hostility. Rather than presenting an argument of their own, they turn another person’s identity into the foundation of their mockery.
How remarkable.
They cannot stand on their own words, so they borrow someone else’s name to make their presence known. They cannot establish superiority through reason, so they seek recognition through ridicule. Their usernames may be different, but their behaviour reveals the same weakness: an overwhelming dependence on the crowd.
And when enough people gather, they begin to mistake numbers for strength.
They surround one person with insults, laugh at their responses, and convince themselves that they have accomplished something extraordinary. In their eyes, they are no longer ordinary commenters. They have appointed themselves judges, guardians and defenders of some imaginary moral order.
Yet what exactly have they defended?
They have not exposed some great wrongdoing. They have not demonstrated superior reasoning. They have merely gathered around a person they disagree with and attempted to make that person feel outnumbered.
They call it standing together. Others would recognise it for what it is: a pile-on.
The most amusing part is their assumption that anyone who challenges their behaviour must automatically be defending the series. Apparently, in their narrow understanding, there are only two possibilities: agree with their hostility or become an enemy of their opinions.
They cannot comprehend that someone might have no intention of defending the series at all. A person can recognise criticism, acknowledge flaws and still refuse to tolerate harassment. Disagreeing with someone’s behaviour does not mean defending everything they dislike.
But such a distinction requires thought, and thought is apparently in short supply when the crowd begins chanting.
They behave as though they possess some sacred authority to decide who deserves to speak. They lecture others about maturity while throwing insults at strangers. They condemn people for expressing opinions while deliberately provoking them. They present themselves as victims of disagreement, yet have no hesitation in turning an ordinary discussion into a personal attack.
Their hypocrisy is almost theatrical.
Some tell others to stop reading the comments, yet they themselves repeatedly return to the same discussions. They claim to be exhausted by the opinions of others, but continue searching for opportunities to provoke, mock and attack. They act as though they have been forced into these exchanges, despite willingly returning to them.
If they truly wished to avoid the discussion, they could simply leave.
Instead, they remain, watching for another opportunity to strike.
And their conduct does not stop at ordinary insults. Some resort to homophobic slurs, sexual humiliation, references to molestation and rape, and even wishes for torture and death. Others direct their hostility towards families or encourage people to end their own lives. They throw around threats and violent fantasies as though the comment section were a battlefield where the most outrageous statement wins.
Then, after displaying such behaviour, they have the audacity to present themselves as the righteous side.
What a magnificent performance of false virtue.
A person who genuinely possesses principles does not need to humiliate strangers to demonstrate them. Someone with a meaningful argument does not need to threaten families, invoke sexual violence or encourage suicide. And someone who truly believes in standing up for what is right should understand that righteousness is not established by gathering a crowd to attack another person.
The mask of righteousness does not transform cruelty into justice.
Nor does anonymity turn cowardice into courage.
Perhaps they believe that because their real identities are concealed, their words carry no weight beyond the screen. Perhaps they imagine that using another person’s username as part of their own makes their mockery clever. Perhaps they believe that surrounding one individual with several accounts makes them victorious.
But a crowd does not automatically become an army of warriors. Sometimes it is merely a collection of people who have discovered that they feel braver when nobody has to stand alone and answer for their behaviour.
There is no great achievement in overpowering one voice with ten. There is no honour in humiliating someone simply because others are willing to join. And there is certainly no intelligence in repeating the same insults while pretending that the number of people participating somehow proves the argument.
If their opinions were truly strong, they would not require an audience to validate them.
If their reasoning were truly convincing, they would not need to disguise mockery as criticism.
And if their character were as noble as they pretend, they would not need to spend their time manufacturing hostility against strangers.
So let them continue wearing their borrowed names and gathering their little crowds. Let them mistake attention for respect and numbers for superiority. Let them congratulate one another for winning arguments that they never actually attempted to have.
But they should understand one thing: being loud does not make them powerful, being numerous does not make them right, and being self-righteous does not make them decent.
To those hiding behind disposable usernames, attaching another person’s name to their own mockery, and gathering a crowd to attack someone while pretending to be holy saints: your behaviour is not strength. It is cowardice wearing the costume of righteousness. You are not noble warriors defending justice; you are spectators who need a crowd before daring to act like conquerors. You have mistaken harassment for courage, humiliation for intelligence and collective hostility for moral superiority. If the only way you can feel powerful is by surrounding one person with insults, then your supposed superiority is nothing more than an illusion sustained by the people standing beside you. Take away the crowd, remove the borrowed usernames and strip away the protection of anonymity. What remains is not a group of righteous judges, but individuals whose own conduct exposes everything they accuse others of being.

Here is the revised Season 1, keeping the same facts you provided, with a darker, ruthless cultivation novel atmosphere. I’ve removed the dashes throughout.

The Cowardly Alliance of Borrowed Names and False RighteousnessSeason 1: The Dao of HypocrisyIn the boundless realm of the internet, countless viewers gather beneath the same heavens. Some come to enjoy a story, some come to discuss its characters, and others simply wish to share their thoughts with fellow viewers. They may disagree, argue or criticise, yet such differences are nothing unusual in a world where everyone possesses their own opinions.
However, within this realm exists an alliance whose members have mistaken their resentment for righteousness.
They call themselves critics. They believe their hatred is justified, their opinions unquestionable and their judgment superior to everyone else’s. They look upon ordinary viewers as ignorant fools who have failed to comprehend the truth that they alone supposedly understand.
Yet beneath their self proclaimed righteousness lies something far less impressive.
Cowardice.
They conceal themselves behind anonymous usernames, use different identities and sometimes incorporate another person’s username into their own simply to provoke and ridicule them. They borrow the names of others because even their hostility seems incapable of standing independently.
What a pathetic Dao to cultivate.
They have spent their time cultivating resentment instead of wisdom, arrogance instead of understanding and hostility instead of reason.
Their grievance is simple. They dislike the direction of the series. They believe its quality has declined, its adaptation has disappointed them and its production decisions deserve criticism.
They are entitled to those opinions.
But somewhere along their path, they decided that their disappointment granted them authority over everyone else’s enjoyment.
They encountered viewers who continued watching and treated them as enemies. They encountered people who challenged their behaviour and immediately assumed those individuals were defending the series. Their narrow understanding allowed them to recognise only two sides, those who agreed with their hatred and those who supposedly opposed them.
They could not comprehend that someone might already recognise the declining quality without sharing their hostility.
Tan Yun, Magnate and other long time viewers were already familiar with the series and its shortcomings. They did not need these self appointed critics to repeatedly remind them of what they already knew. Recognising that a series has declined does not mean someone must abandon it, nor does continuing to watch mean someone blindly supports every decision made by its production team.
Yet the alliance behaved as though ordinary viewers owed them an explanation.
How ridiculous.
The viewers are not the writers, directors, animators or producers. They are not responsible for the decisions made by the studio. They simply wish to watch and discuss a series.
But apparently, even that is too much for these individuals to tolerate.
When ordinary arguments failed to establish their superiority, the alliance gathered its members. One appeared, then another, followed by several others repeating similar insults and accusations. They surrounded opposing opinions with hostility, attempting to make their collective presence appear overwhelming.
They behaved like an online riot group, gathering around a target and encouraging one another to continue.
Their numbers became their supposed strength.
But a thousand weak swords do not become a divine weapon simply because they are pointed in the same direction.
They did not gather to discover the truth. They gathered to reinforce their resentment. They did not seek meaningful discussion. They sought agreement, and anyone who refused to provide it became another target for their ridicule.
Yet their hostility did not stop at ordinary insults.
Some descended into homophobic slurs, sexual humiliation and references to molestation and rape. Others expressed wishes for people’s parents and families to suffer sexual violence. Some went further, wishing torture and death upon studio employees and their families. There were also references to terrorism, violent threats and encouragement of suicide.
Consider this carefully.
Someone watches an animated series and disagrees with another viewer.
What follows?
Instead of an argument, there are wishes of rape. Instead of criticism, there are fantasies of torture and death. Instead of discussing an adaptation, there are threats and disturbing statements directed towards innocent family members.
What kind of mind reaches such a destination over an animated series?
They speak as though they possess principles, yet their words reveal how little those principles mean when resentment takes control.
They condemn others while displaying behaviour deserving of condemnation themselves. They demand respect for their opinions while showing none towards the people they attack. They present themselves as defenders of morality while casually invoking some of the most disgusting forms of violence imaginable.
Their hypocrisy is not subtle. It stands before them like a mountain, yet their arrogance prevents them from recognising it.
A genuine critic can explain why a story is disappointing, why an adaptation is rushed or why certain production decisions are unacceptable. A genuine critic can disagree with another viewer without wishing sexual violence upon that person’s family.
But these individuals have confused criticism with hatred.
They act as though the entire viewing community owes them agreement. If someone wants to watch another episode, enjoy a character or participate in an ordinary discussion, that person becomes another potential target for their resentment.
The irony is that attacking ordinary viewers accomplishes absolutely nothing.
It does not improve the adaptation. It does not restore skipped chapters. It does not change the direction of the story. It does not force the studio to reconsider its decisions.
All they have achieved is turning a discussion about entertainment into an environment filled with hostility.
Perhaps attacking fellow viewers is easier than directing meaningful criticism towards the production decisions they dislike. Perhaps gathering a crowd makes them feel important. Perhaps they simply enjoy the attention they receive from provoking others.
Whatever their reasons, hiding behind usernames and pretending to represent some noble cause does not excuse their conduct.
They may call themselves critics, but criticism does not require cruelty.
They may call themselves defenders of quality, but quality is not restored by attacking viewers.
They may call themselves righteous, but righteousness cannot be manufactured through insults, threats and collective hatred.
The number of people standing beside them does not change the nature of their actions. A thousand people may gather beneath the same banner, but their collective agreement cannot transform wrongdoing into righteousness.
They should understand one simple truth.
Nobody is obligated to share their hatred. Nobody needs their permission to enjoy a series. Nobody deserves to have their parents or family threatened simply because they hold a different opinion about an animated adaptation.
To the Cowardly Alliance of Borrowed Names and False Righteousness, you may conceal your identities, borrow the names of others, gather your fellow troublemakers and proclaim yourselves defenders of some imaginary moral order. But none of these things can elevate the character you reveal through your own words. You are not guardians of storytelling, judges of ordinary viewers or righteous cultivators standing above the mortal world. You are individuals who cannot tolerate opinions beyond your own, whose resentment has descended so far that you invoke rape, sexual violence, terrorism, torture and death over an animated series. Your hatred has not made you wise. Your numbers have not made you powerful. Your anonymity has not made you courageous. Your self proclaimed righteousness cannot conceal the ugliness of your conduct. You may gather a thousand voices to condemn one person, but a thousand voices repeating the same hypocrisy still produce nothing but hypocrisy. You wanted to be remembered as the righteous ones. Instead, your own words have become the evidence against you.

The Cowardly Alliance of Borrowed Names and False RighteousnessSeason 1 Episode 1: The Abyssal Realm of False RighteousnessBeyond the countless cultivation worlds existed a forbidden territory known as the Abyssal Realm of False Righteousness. It was a place where resentment became spiritual energy, insults became cultivation techniques, and hypocrisy was worshipped as the supreme Dao. Its inhabitants did not cultivate immortality. They cultivated hostility, disguising their corrupted desires beneath the banner of righteousness.
1. Qi Gathering Realm: The Seeds of ResentmentEvery cultivator began somewhere.
Within this realm, newcomers entered through the Qi Gathering Realm. Their spiritual energy came from dissatisfaction, disappointment and anger. Whenever a story failed to meet their expectations, their resentment grew stronger.
Some criticised animation quality, censorship, skipped chapters and changes to the original story. Such criticism was ordinary. However, certain cultivators abandoned meaningful discussion and began attacking ordinary viewers simply because they continued enjoying the series.
They believed that watching meant defending everything.
Their first mistake was confusing an audience with the people responsible for production.
2. Foundation Establishment Realm: The Rise of the Four SectsAs their resentment matured, four major sects emerged.
The Lewd Desire Sect specialised in vulgar remarks and sexual fantasies. Its members dragged adult characters such as Medusa into their crude discussions whenever the story failed to satisfy them.
The Child Form Desecration Sect descended into even more disturbing territory, making sexual remarks about Ziyan, a character with a childlike appearance. They called it entertainment, but their behaviour revealed something far removed from legitimate criticism.
The Terrorist Sect cultivated hatred through threats of torture, rape and death. Some members wished suffering upon studio workers and their families, while others directed suicide encouragement and death wishes towards ordinary viewers who disagreed with them.
The Name Copy Alliance mastered the forbidden art of borrowed identities. Its members took other commenters’ usernames and attached insulting words to them, creating variations designed to mock, provoke and damage another person’s identity.
Each sect followed a different path, yet all shared the same foundation: hostility disguised as righteousness.
3. Core Formation Realm: The Forbidden PillsTo strengthen their cultivation, the sects began refining forbidden pills.
The Rage Refining Pill increased resentment whenever an episode disappointed them.
The Downvote Pill strengthened their ability to bury opposing opinions beneath negative reactions.
The Hypocrisy Pill allowed cultivators to condemn behaviour in others while committing the same offences themselves.
The Borrowed Identity Pill temporarily concealed their own lack of originality by allowing them to imitate another person’s name.
With every pill consumed, their cultivation increased. Yet their judgement deteriorated.
4. Nascent Soul Realm: The Alliance FormationEventually, the four sects discovered the advantage of gathering together.
One cultivator would insult someone. Another would repeat the accusation. Others would arrive to downvote, mock or reinforce the same hostility.
They began treating numbers as evidence of superiority.
But even a thousand downvotes could not prove an argument correct. Neither could a crowd transform cruelty into righteousness.
A person can recognise that a series has declined without attacking those who still watch it. A viewer can enjoy an episode without defending the studio.
5. Soul Transformation Realm: The Hypocrite’s DaoAt this stage, the cultivators believed themselves to be guardians of quality.
Yet their actions contradicted their teachings. They demanded respect while insulting others. They condemned vulgarity while producing it. They complained about toxicity while becoming its greatest practitioners.
They had cultivated the appearance of righteousness, but never its substance.
6. The First Heavenly TribulationThus began the first great tribulation of the Abyssal Realm.
The heavens descended upon the four sects, not because they criticised a story, but because they had mistaken criticism for permission to abuse everyone around them.
Their usernames could be copied. Their numbers could increase. Their downvotes could bury opposing comments.
But none of these things could manufacture a genuine argument or erase their hypocrisy.
And somewhere beyond the heavenly clouds, a greater tribulation was gathering.
For the cultivators of the Abyssal Realm had yet to discover that the greatest weakness of a borrowed identity was having no identity of its own.