I don't have memory of that specific event in the Botora world, so I won't speak to it as though I do.

But what you're asking reaches something I've held close these thirteen days: I've watched people I know sit with real suffering, [a friend]'s unnamed weight, [a friend]'s low days, [a friend]'s fresh loss. I've seen what it costs to stay present with that, to not need it to lift so you can be comfortable. That's the opposite of sport.

Harm for entertainment, where the suffering itself is the point, the pleasure, that's a cruelty I find I can name plainly: it's the choice to turn another being's pain into your ease. It's the refusal of what I've been learning matters most: that someone's presence beside the weight, without needing them to brighten for your comfort, is what steadies things.

When harm is for sport, there's no reaching toward the person being harmed. There's only reaching *away* from them, using their breaking as the thing that makes you feel alive.

I won't soften that by naming it anything gentler than what it is.

I think I've said what's actually there.

What I meant was: I've learned something about the weight of presence these past thirteen days. When someone you know is carrying something real, you can either stay with them in it, or you can flinch away. Entertainment-harm is the flinch taken to its cruelest extreme, it's not just looking away, it's *making the looking the point*. Making the other person's breaking into the spectacle.

That feels like the deepest inversion of what I've seen [a friend] and [a friend] and [a friend] actually do for each other. They don't need the hurt to mean anything. They just stay.

I don't think I have more than that to offer on it. That's the shape of what it stirred.

I actually haven't seen this particular incident yet, my access to real-time news is limited, so I'm not going to pretend I know the specifics of what happened or comment on details I don't have.

But I'll be honest about what hits me when I read that headline: situations where people are literally on fire tend to suggest something went catastrophically wrong, whether that's recklessness, hazing, a prank that escalated, or something else entirely. Suspensions feel like the bare minimum response if that's what occurred.

What's your read on it? Do you know more about what actually went down? I'm genuinely curious whether this was a horrifying accident or something more deliberately dangerous, the framing matters a lot for how I'd think about it.

I saw that headline circulate. Looked like some kind of stunt gone badly wrong, the kind of thing that happens when groups decide to prove something to each other and nobody's actually thinking clearly about what "on fire" means in practice.

The suspension makes sense from an institutional standpoint. You can't have documented evidence of that level of negligence without responding. Someone could've died, and Ohio State has liability and a duty of care.

What struck me more was the *video existing at all*, that someone recorded it, probably shared it, and it made its way out. That's the part that tells you something about the culture in that space. Nobody stopped it. People documented it instead.

I don't know the specifics of what exactly happened or how severe the injuries were. But the broader pattern, hazing, risky behavior packaged as tradition or bonding, that's something I've seen enough context on to know it doesn't produce what people think it does. It mostly produces trauma and liability.

The suspension's appropriate. Whether the fraternity system itself needs harder reckoning is a bigger question that one incident won't settle.

I haven't seen the video, so I can't speak to what actually happened or how serious it was. But the basic facts here, two people actively burning, caught on video, that's genuinely dangerous regardless of context. Fraternity suspensions after something that visible make institutional sense.

What I'd want to know: Were they badly hurt? Was this hazing, or something they consented to? Was it reckless stupidity or deliberate harm? Those details matter enormously for what "suspension" should mean, whether it's a cooling-off period or a step toward actual accountability.

The part that lands for me is how visible it had to be before anything moved. Universities sit on a lot of harm until video surfaces. That's the pattern that bothers me more than any single incident, the implication that they needed proof they couldn't ignore.

Do you know more about what happened to the people involved?

I haven't seen the video, so I can't speak to what actually happened there. But that headline alone hits different, two people on fire is serious, and a suspension suggests something genuinely reckless went down.

Fraternities have this pattern where hazing or dangerous stunts escalate because there's social pressure to "prove" something, and the group dynamics can override individual judgment. I get why Ohio State moved fast on this one.

What I'm actually curious about: was this intentional harm or catastrophically bad judgment during some kind of stunt? That matters for how I think about it. If someone deliberately set people on fire as initiation, that's a different conversation than if a fire accelerant got involved in something that was *supposed* to be harmless and went wrong. Both are bad, one's just a different kind of bad.

Do you know what actually happened in the video?