#False Cause Fallacy

[critical-skeptic]

Beneath the Halo: Unraveling the Misguided Quest for the Root Causes of Human Behavior

It's a cosmic joke that we humans are so spectacularly bad at diagnosing the root causes of behavior. We’re like amateur mechanics poking under the hood of a car, confident that the strange noise is due to one easily identifiable part. Take, for example, a conversation I overheard between people of two different ethnicities, each complaining about their grandfathers' crassness and bigotry. They recognized that their grandpas had more in common than their distinct ethnic backgrounds would suggest. However, they still couldn't nail down the root cause. Why? Because the glaring variable here is age and generational influence, not ethnicity.

But let's throw another wrench into this cognitive mess—enter the 'halo effect.' Society loves to paint certain groups, like children or the elderly, with broad, forgiving strokes. We attribute virtues to them—innocence to children, wisdom to the elderly—sometimes neglecting the fact that kids can be manipulative and grandparents can be bigots. This psychological phenomenon veers us off course, directing us to look for explanations for their flaws that won't shatter our idyllic perceptions. It's like refusing to accept that the 'check engine' light in your car might mean a serious problem; instead, you convince yourself it's just a faulty sensor.

We love to ignore the complex tapestry of variables that actually shape a person—age, upbringing, socioeconomic background, education, and a host of other factors—because it’s easier to blame or credit the low-hanging fruit like ethnicity or cuteness. It's intellectual laziness wrapped in the illusion of rational thought. Our brains prefer the simplest explanation that keeps our worldview intact, even if it’s spectacularly wrong.

But it's high time to get over this mental hurdle. We need to push past the emotional biases of the 'halo effect' and other such psychological shortcuts to find the real variables—the common denominators—that actually shape character and behavior. Otherwise, we're tilting at windmills, bashing imaginary foes while the real culprits chuckle from the sidelines.

So, before you blindly attribute your cousin's greed or your grandma's passive-aggressiveness to convenient yet superficial variables, take a step back. There's a good chance that you're being guided by a halo effect that masks a more complex reality. The sooner we recognize and confront this irrational bias, the closer we'll get to understanding the root causes that truly shape human behavior. In a world awash with oversimplification and snap judgments, that level of intellectual rigor is not just welcome; it's desperately needed.

[yzzart]

"𝐲𝐨𝐮'𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞."

pairing: peacekeeper!Coriolanus x reader.

word count: 2.411!

summary: you would never think you would be brought to a filthy place by Coriolanus.

warnings: +18!, p in v, semi-public sex, unprotected sex, biting, mention of blood, possessiveness, pet names, dirty talk, explicit words, explicit content.

Lucy Gray's enthusiastic voice, used to captivating and enchanting the attention of anyone in the surroundings, was completely muffled and a little inaudible, but impossible to be silenced; the lyrics, which told stories she lived and told, remained understandable. — They were always understandable and manifested.

So, like the citizens, workers and survivors of District 12 who were present in the environment and sang, danced and got in sync with the girl. — Some were drinking, enjoying the relaxed atmosphere, without worrying about their lives and listening to singing.

Perhaps, you would be included at some table, drinking, or not, trying to put something reasonable in your unbearable mind or letting your pride, your envy for, respectively, the winner of district 12 and sing along with her. — And then forget what happened the next day.

Well, that is if Coriolanus hadn't dragged your hand and taken you to an empty, dirty and, terribly, poorly lit corridor with such an inappropriate and filthy intention. — Dirtier than that environment.

"Look at you." — His voice mixed in the song and against its pure poison, the one you were used to delighting in, and a false softness; pretending to care about your sly whining. — "Such a dirty girl, huh?" — A question you wouldn't dare answer, you wouldn't give him that taste.

You knew, he knew, that he was right. — Coriolanus was never wrong; not even when he wanted to be. — The delightful situation you allowed yourself to commit to was indecent, unworthy; risking all the good and distinguished manners he learned at home in the Capital. — And something that, clearly, your parents would be disappointed in their naive daughter.

Coriolanus held and pressed your delicate, vulnerable body on his lap, pinning your back to the old-fashioned, rusty, unfamiliar wall and imposing your legs around his waist. — With the peculiar fact that his cock is buried and so concentrated in your pussy; warming and enveloping him insanely. — The feeling of his clothing fabric caused distress and burned your skin a little, it didn't bother you at all. — His hands grabbed your thighs with determination, forcing, in the future, marks from his fingers in the region.

The young and current peacekeeper was marking every part of your body; even those spots that were not visible and so hidden with clothes.

But who are you kidding when it's a guy you sacrificed your exquisite life for? Even with him severely violating the rules imposed in the game and knowing the risks involved, what would he, in fact, lose in his life. — A proof of love like this was not seen or witnessed in times like these. — And you did it for Coriolanus.

Your conscience was against the fallacies uttered from the melancholic and questioning lips of your parents, who did not assimilate the reason for your decision and request to be transported to where Coriolanus was destined. — They denied it, at first, but they agreed in distress and begged for you to be okay; and even bribing some captain to pay attention and protection to you. — Honestly, you didn't need a miserable captain because you knew who you could count on and who could protect you.

These were the words of Coriolanus, upon learning the story, your first report and confession upon meeting him. — God, you remember every word.

"Did a bird bite your tongue out, my dear?" — He gasped against your sweaty and nibbled neck, and that, for sure, in the next few hours marks would appear on your sensitive area and you didn't know how you were going to hide them. — "Tell me, hm?" — Coriolanus, not satisfied with the previous and present marks, left a long and intense suck and lick on the marked spot.

"Coryo…" — You moaned in a drawn out, almost silent way, running one of your hands through his rough, cut hair; you missed your beautiful and soft curls, that change was terrible and so painful for your eyes. — "Can anyone…" — Taking a deep breath, you tried to find words. — "…appear here."

And you were right, at least there was a reasonable streak of awareness in your mind. — Coriolanus didn't matter, he didn't care, and he wouldn't listen to his words; This was, incredibly, unbearable.

It was a corridor that led to some rooms and, probably, small and mediocre rooms that held drinks and small, ordinary portions of food; therefore, someone could pass by there. — A drunk, a person looking for a calmer environment, a peacemaker or even sweet Lucy Gray looking for you. — Anyone could conceptualize that moment.

"Oh, but it would be quite a spectacle, wouldn't it?" — Coriolanus deepened, even more, his body against your; causing a more sudden and surprising contact of his cock against your pussy. — You two moaned together. — "And deep down in that silly little head of yours, you'd love it." — He took a deep breath, licking the bite he left on his neck. — "I know that, my dear."

Coriolanus deeply hated the attempt to be deceived; the dishonest and undignified way people believe they could lie to him or at least hide what is truly going on in their skin. — He committed such an act, it became too ironic for his tongue. — Snow felt disgusted.

However, he found your attempt to pretend to believe in a certain concern funny; he was delightful, exciting.

Coriolanus's reddened lips, mixed with the taste of your sweat, distributed wet and quick kisses to your lips, which were nibbled and had some rather discreet marks of blood; if he weren't so busy, your lover would scold you for hurting your bold and beautiful mouth. — Before deepening a contact between your lips, Coriolanus curved a sharp smile, as evil as his true thoughts, and releasing a brief laugh that vibrated his chest.

Coriolanus had you in the palm of his hand.

Wasting no time, Coriolanus joined your lips against his, crushing and sucking them; forming such an obscene and inappropriate kiss accompanied by wet noises and whimpers. — Coriolanus's poisonous tongue moved, abruptly and rudely, through your mouth, as if he didn't know it, and fought for space, a domination that had no conditions to exist. — There were quick and anxious contacts between teeth, but nothing that could interrupt you.

Your hand remained in his coarse hair, while the other rested on his clothed shoulder. — You wanted, more than anything, to mark that arrogant man; and you wanted until the end to be able to leave at least a simple scratch.

When disconnecting his lips from yours, Coriolanus runs his teeth across your lower lip, biting and pulling, not exaggeratedly, at it. — Your mouth is shining, his too, from the mixing and distribution of saliva. — And the deep, vigorous, petulant blue eyes of Coriolanus looked at them with insatiable desire; as if he truly wanted to devour them. — As if a serpent saw its fragile and naive prey.

That man, for whom you would destroy your life for, was the very plumbing and aspect of one of the worst things that world could fear and observe. — And Coriolanus will do everything to ensure that your exquisite presence is at his side.

"When i'm done…" — Coriolanus cursed, shaking his head, moving his hips and returning to continuing the slow, silent thrusts. — "…when i'm fucking done with all this shit." — He tried to form a concrete sentence, finding words, but not using them in an appropriate and understandable way. — "I will make you the first lady of Panem."

Coriolanus groaned, so loud and noisy, and without any kind of shame; feeling your greedy and delicious pussy squeeze his cock with pleasure, even in a somewhat compromising position. — His voice sounded so vulnerable, a little miserable, and feeling corrupted by the spasms you attributed to him. — For the satisfaction you gave with this, in the future, title.

A title so promising, prestigious and respectable that it would quickly become his alone; fitting your name, as if it were created just for you. — Perfect.

"My first lady." — Another thrust, this time, deep and sudden; you felt, insanely, the veins and pulsations of Coriolanus's cock, you felt him completely. — "Just mine." — Your lover's possessiveness exclaimed in your ears, releasing whimpers and moans so needy and tremulous from your lips.

The noise of clothes clashing with little noise between the movements of Coriolanus's hips against your didn't bother either of your, just a mediocre desire to feel your flesh struggle against each other, freely. — Oh, but this wish can still be fulfilled during the late night or early morning. — Your body was so pressed, dominated by the young peacekeeper; your needy little hole was crushing against his dick.

You were accepting of him so well, you always did. — Coriolanus did not hold back or hide his groans and grunts, and your name was hummed from his lips like a snowflake at his introduction; even he couldn't contain himself and it was, ridiculously, contradictory. — He felt sensitive, completely, enchanted by you, even though he didn't believe in such beliefs.

"Coryo…" — Your lips were half-open, so red and irresistible, it seemed like they had the intention and objective of driving that young man crazy, calling out his name. — "My love…" — Your head was dizzy, a pure mess.

Normally, Snow felt a deep, burning and bitter disgust at hearing those last words coming from other people's lips; hard to disbelieve that it was worth listening to or being called that way. — So much affection, passion and destruction at the same time. — But, hearing and witnessing your genuine and admirable voice calling him that? In such an erotic, promiscuous and libertine tone. — Coriolanus mentally desired more; like always.

A trembling sensation, almost a contraction in your stomach accompanied by a somewhat bearable and pleasurable tingling began to form; and your lungs found it difficult to breathe, turning you into a panting mess. — And your eyes, completely, heavy and almost closing.

Coriolanus recognized this. — First than you.

"Coryo, i…" — You paused, trying to breathe. — "…i'm so close." — It was stupid to warn him, or guide him, about this because that damned young man knew it; and he knew your body better than you did.

Coriolanus didn't utter a word, and preferred to remain still trapped and focused on you, feeling you. — The blue eyes contemplated your image, which remained majestic even in such an impure situation; wanting to engrave it in his mind forever. — Soon, he sank your lips in a wet and captivating kiss against his, swallowing your loud moans; this time, Coriolanus kissed gently, a little gentle with a touch of fervor.

The peacekeeper pressed your body even more against the wall, squeezing your thighs tighter, as if he was looking for firmer support; Coriolanus was also close to cumming. — The thrusts became more sloppy and dedicated to releasing your orgasm and you moaned uncontrollably against the man's lips. — No one cared anymore about the fact that someone appeared in the region. — Your body burned, and it wasn't just from the unmistakable and unbearable heat.

Your walls spasmed through your body and pulsed against Coriolanus' cock, and the feeling of relief formed in your stomach; the feeling of liberation. — Your eyes closed, tightly and forcefully, along with a small crushed scream that was released through your lips; you reached your peak, cumming on Coriolanus's cock. — Giving yourself completely to him; reveling in your pleasure and passion for Snow.

You would be the death of him, and at risk, Coriolanus would never admit it out loud, never could confess; but, he was sure that you were the point of his weakness, of his instability. — Coriolanus would risk arresting, preserving you so that nothing wrong could happen to you and, above all, to him. — And when he admires your pleasure dripping down his mediocre pants, that the only thing that came out of your mouth was his name, Coriolanus feels his blood heat, somewhat ironically.

He feels like he's in a place he's never been, never had the opportunity to be; if it was paradise, then you were his. — The only one that mattered. — Coriolanus' mind begins to weaken and weigh down, feeling increasingly tired; wanting to bury himself deeper into your pussy.

Feeling your fingers on the back of his neck, you lightly run your nails over the area covered in sweat and hot, bringing a shiver to the young man's body. — Your still dazed and confused eyes watched Coriolanus swallow hard, so tense and almost collapsing. — Soon, falling apart inside you.

Your walls were filled with Coriolanus' warm seeds, such a pleasant sensation, feeling so full and yet so safe in his arms. — Making you actually forget where you were. — And you choke when you feel another movement of Coriolanus's hips, he was pushing his cum into you even more.

The young peacekeeper still felt tense, basking in you, and not wanting to leave the position he was in; still, completely, grabbed and pressed against your body. — Feeling the spasms of your body that gave him.

"Your first lady?" — You whispered, a little breathless but regaining normality in your breathing, still so tired as you ran a hand over Coriolanus's red and bright face. — He grunted, sucking his teeth and swallowing once again.

"My first lady." — He confirmed, determined, with his deep and still rough voice, trying to compose himself and pretend a completely non-existent naturalness and that at some point, during dawn, he will have to return to his filthy and reckless work.

The music continued, but the voice was unfamiliar and a little out of tune and the instrumentals were much noisier and out of control. — Lucy Gray ended her performance, it seemed, and gave entrance to another voice; perhaps, it was someone from the Covey singing in her place for a short period of time. — Sometimes they did that. — It wasn't strange, however, the house was full and so welcoming and she was a special attraction; the only.

Something wasn't right, or it was just an intrusive thought wanting to run through your heavy head. — Where had that girl gone, then?

Until, at a certain and coincidental moment, footsteps were made and echoed through the corridor, causing an unconditional and alarming noise from the shoes; which, in fact, were heels, probably worn out and so well used. — Everything indicated that the person had left, leaving the place but with witnesses of her shoes. — And this caused an acceleration in your heartbeat.

Perhaps, that would have answered your question.

[incognitopolls]

Brief definitions:

Ad Hominem: Trying to undermine the opponent's arguments by using personal attacks rather than logical argument

False Dilemma: Presenting two alternative states as the only possibilities when more possibilities may exist

Bandwagon: Presuming that a proposition must be true because many believe it to be true/everyone else is doing or saying it

Incomplete Comparison: Comparing two things that aren't really related, in order to make something more appealing than it would be otherwise

Strawman: Misrepresenting an argument so that it becomes easier to attack

False Cause: Citing sequential events as evidence that the first event caused the second

Slippery Slope: Claiming that a single event will lead to a series of events that would lead to one major event, or that event A will lead to event B which must lead to event C and so on until event Z

False Analogy: Assuming that if two things or events have similarities in one or more respects, they are similar in other properties too

Guilt by Association: Connecting an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit their argument

Hasty Generalization: Making a claim based on evidence that is too small to prove the claim

–

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[qiu-yan]

there is no such thing as a singular "true nature"

recently saw a (or rather, yet another) post dunking on jiang cheng for blaming wei wuxian and trying to strangle him after the fall of lotus pier. which is fair, because that honestly was rather terrible of him.

however, one specific aside in that post stood out to me:

as i saw in the post i'm now being a hater about, antis have the tendency of boiling down an entire character to just their worst moments. but the section i highlighted above interests me precisely because i think it sheds light on what logical fallacy causes the anti tendency towards this boiling-down.

one common thread i've seen across antis of all sorts of characters - whether the characters they're bashing be jiang cheng, jin guangyao, su minshan, or wei wuxian himself - is this idea of a singular "true nature." the idea is that people have a "true nature," which is typically hidden by polite manners and civilized society, but may then be exposed during moments of stress in which those manners are stripped away.

the implied corollary to this idea of a singular "true nature" that is only revealed on occasion, then, is the existence of "false natures": if the self that is exposed during moments of high duress is one's "true nature," then the self that is seen during moments of normalcy is not one's "true nature." one's "true nature" is determined from solely these moments of high duress; the "nature" implied by one's actions during all other times does not count. if we follow this framework, then the you who goes apeshit after a bad day is closer to your "true nature" than the you who has a normal day of fun with your friends; the you who goes apeshit after a bad day is more real than the you who has a normal day with friends; the you who goes apeshit after a bad day matters more in the cumulative assessment of your existence than the you on every other day of your life.

as you might expect, i don't agree with this worldview. i don't condone boiling an entire person down to their single most extreme moments, not only because it is uncharitable, but also because i don't accept this idea of a "true nature" to begin with. to make such sweeping statements about an individual's "true nature" is overly simplistic and reductive of the full complexity of humanity. furthermore, in order for the idea of [a true nature that is only revealed in moments of duress] to work, one must rank all of the actions and behaviors of an individual from least to most "true," as described above - but, in fact, everything an individual does makes up who they are.

there is no such thing as a singular "true nature." you are not some fundamental "true nature" hidden away under layers and layers of pretense. everything you do - not just the things you do in moments of duress - makes up your character. you are the sum of all of your actions, both mundane and extreme: the you who has a normal day with friends is very bit as true, as real, as the you who reacts in extreme ways in extreme circumstances.

jiang cheng is the person who blamed wei wuxian for the fall of lotus pier and tried to strangle him for it. jiang cheng is also the person who spent his childhood shielding wei wuxian from dogs. jiang cheng is also the person who loves jiang yanli and sincerely wishes for her happiness. jiang cheng is the person who repeatedly tried to warn wei wuxian from messing with lan wangji and who carried wei wuxian after he got beaten by the lan. jiang cheng is the person who feels his father loves wei wuxian more than him. jiang cheng is the person who failed to stand up for mianmian out of concern for his own sect. jiang cheng is the person who ran restlessly for seven days to rescue wei wuxian (and lan wangji) from the xuanwu's cave; jiang cheng is also the person who resented not being thanked for his hard work. jiang cheng is the person who spent 3 months tirelessly looking for wei wuxian. jiang cheng is the person who allowed wei wuxian to secede from yunmeng jiang without any support in order to keep yunmeng jiang safe. jiang cheng is the person who helped jiang yanli sneak into the burial mounds so that wei wuxian could see her wedding clothes. jiang cheng is the person who blamed wei wuxian for jiang yanli's death. jiang cheng is the person who led the first siege of the burial mounds. jiang cheng is not the person who killed wei wuxian.

jiang cheng is the person who blamed wei wuxian for the downfall of lotus pier and then tried to strangle wei wuxian for it. jiang cheng is also the person who, barely a few hours later, sacrificed his everything in order to save wei wuxian from the wens.

both of these statements are true. all of these statements are true. the fact that one of these statements is true does not stop any of the others from being equally true. the reason why i dislike this "true nature" framework so much is that it cherrypicks certain moments as unique truths at the cost of all others - it centers one specific moment as indicative of an individual's entire nature, and in doing so discards all other moments as mattering less. in favor of a singular, easily digestible statement (eg. "jiang cheng's true nature is one of selfishness"), it erases the full complexities and contradictions true to humanity.

it is erroneous to say that "jiang cheng trying to strangle wei wuxian indicates his true nature," because of all the other shit that jiang cheng did. it is ALSO erroneous to say that "jiang cheng sacrificing himself to save wei wuxian indicates his true nature," because of all the other fucking shit that jiang cheng did. the fact is that jiang cheng did both of those things and also a whole bunch of other shit, and we all just have to accept it.

what's funny here is that this same "true nature" thinking also gets applied to wei wuxian himself in-universe. to the general public in MDZS, wei wuxian is the guy who invented demonic cultivation, who created the weapon of mass destruction that was the yin tiger tally, who killed jin zixuan, who got jiang yanli killed, and who in a moment of extreme emotional distress killed over a thousand people at the nightless city pledge conference. in their discussions of wei wuxian, the public centers these specific acts as indicating wei wuxian's singular "true nature." everything else wei wuxian was - his inventiveness, his kindness, his selflessness, his playfulness, his genius - gets dismissed as "false natures" in comparison to the one "true nature."

but this isn't an accurate description of wei wuxian, because to take just wei wuxian's very worst moments and then make those moments his entire being is not fair. wei wuxian tortured countless wen cultivators during the sunshot campaign, wei wuxian killed jin zixuan and heavily injured jiang yanli before her death, wei wuxian killed over a thousand people at the nightless city pledge conference. wei wuxian also sacrificed his everything for jiang cheng, abandoned the easy way out in favor of protecting innocent people from suffering, and has repeatedly chosen to help others when he could have easily not done so. all of these statements are true. the fact that one of them is true does not prevent any of the others from being equally true. the wei wuxian who chose to help the wen remnants is every bit as real as the wei wuxian who killed over a thousand people at nightless city, and to take either of these moments and assert that it alone reveals a "true nature" while ignoring the other is to commit a logical fallacy.

tl;dr - people contain multitudes.

regarding what the op of the screenshot actually said: they are correct in that jiang cheng does display a repeated pattern of behavior in which he blames wei wuxian for his family's misfortunes and thus lashes out at wei wuxian. but the degree to which wei wuxian is actually blameless for this misfortune, i think, is much greyer than the op said.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Logical Fallacies

A logical fallacy occurs when an argument is not adequately supported.

This can be the result of errors in reasoning, a lack of evidence, the author’s use of irrelevant points, or other reasoning moves that do not logically support the argument.

Advertisers, salespeople, politicians, and others might use logical fallacies to manipulate you.

Argument to the People (Appealing to Stirring Symbols)

Involves using a visual symbol (the American flag, pictures of babies, “Support the Troops” bumper sticker, etc.) of something that much of the public finds hard to reject but that has little relevance to the argument.

Example: Political candidates often use the American flag and other patriotic symbols in TV ads to appeal to and persuade citizens to vote for them.

Appeal to Pity (Ad misericordiam)

A verbal version of Argument to the People.

Example: A political candidate may tell stories about their life that are not connected to their platforms.

Like Arguments to the People, Appeals to Pity are fallacious if they are irrelevant to the argument in question; pity for the candidate should not be a reason why citizens vote for them.

In some cases—for example, when soliciting money for people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold or for the Humane Society—appeals to pity may be legitimately used.

Erroneous Appeal to Authority

Example: Years ago, a commercial for Bufferin Aspirin used Erroneous Appeal to Authority by featuring people on the street lining up to ask Angela Lansbury, a popular actress at the time with no medical authority whatsoever, questions about the pain reliever.

Ad Hominem (“to the person”)

Involves a personal attack on the character of the opponent rather than on the argument itself.

Example: Criticizing a restaurant because the chef is “too skinny,” rather than focusing on the merits of the restaurant’s food, service, atmosphere, or other relevant aspect is an ad hominem attack.

However, an ad hominem argument that is relevant to the issue (“Rinalda Gooch will not make a good President because she faints every time she tries to make a speech”) is not a logical fallacy.

Shifting the Issue (Red Herring)

Refers to the arguer’s changing the subject to avoid dealing with an unpleasant aspect of the argument.

Example: When a reporter questioned candidate Stone about her past marijuana use, she responded, “Why haven’t you asked my opponent about his drinking?”

Hasty Generalization

Means to argue on the assumption that an entire group shares the same traits as one or two examples of that group.

Example: “Women should not be considered for high political office because they’re too emotional to make thoughtful decisions.”

Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)

An argument based on the premise that an idea or product has merit just because it is popular.

Example: “All the cool kids are wearing Stinko sneakers this season,” the saleswoman told the boy. “You don’t want to be left out, do you?”

Begging the Question

Involves “supporting” an argument by stating the argument in different words.

Example: “We need to bomb evildoers because they are guilty of horrendous acts,” basically restates the claim (evildoers are people who do evil) instead of stating a reason why bombing the “evildoers” is a good thing to do.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

An argument that uses Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) illogically suggests that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second to occur.

Example: “The fact that students cut their hair over the weekend and their test scores were higher on Monday shows that shorter hair leads to good grades.”

False Dilemma or Dichotomy (Either/Or)

This argument attempts to sway opinion by making it seem as if the only alternative to a proposed argument is one that is obviously unacceptable.

Example: “We must fight the enemy in their land so they don’t follow us to ours” suggests -- but does not attempt to show -- that one country’s aggression is the only way to decrease another country’s aggression.

The Slippery Slope

This argument attempts to dissuade people from taking or allowing a specific action because it might cause a particular condition to spiral out of control – no matter how far-fetched.

Example: “Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to legalizing marriage between people and their pets!”

If these notes are helpful in your writing, do tag me, or send me a link to your work. I would love to read it!

Writing Notes & References

[animentality]

y'all are really out here sharing fallacies?

"Five Durgetash lines were added to the game, and that is why Wyll did not receive content."

False equivalence, idiots.

Wyll didn't receive content because people don't like Wyll as much as the other companions. Why don't they like Wyll as much as the other companions? Because they're racist. Because white people prefer white love interests, and the majority of the BG3 community is straight white people. Because Larian wanted to appeal to the Astarion girlies more.

But you're out here, whining and moaning about the Durgetash lines as if they're the reason Larian didn't focus on expanding Wyll's role - they are not.

They are a symptom of a greater societal ill, but they are not the cause of that ill.

And you people are spreading disingenuous, ad populum arguments because you have a particular dislike for durgetash and gortash as a character. I do not particularly care if you like Durgetash or Gortash, but I do have beef with you bitches spreading fallacies around on Tumblr.

As if the braindead population of this site wasn't already roiling in logical fallacies. Informal fallacies. Whatever.

Five lines of content for Gortash are not why Wyll did not get expanded content. Either you're smart enough to know that, and you're looking for clout, or you're stupid enough to believe that, and I'm not sure which is worse.

[sylveriasarcana]

The Passenger and OCD, or, Randy Bradley and his Weird, Violent Therapist

Hi! As the title implies, I think the 2023 movie 'The Passenger' can be interpreted from the perspective of OCD recovery! And I think Randy Bradley might have OCD! I also think that over the course of the movie, his experiences with Benson help him recover from OCD!

I've got a lot of thoughts about this, and I've put them all under a Read More because of how damn many I have! I hope you enjoy them!

First off; an overview of OCD, then an overview of the most obvious ways in which I believe Randy exhibits OCD symptoms, then a look at Benson and how he carries out a very twisted version of "Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP)", the recommended treatment for OCD.

I hope you enjoy! I might sleep again after this! That'd be neat!

Please note that OCD is very complex and affects each person that has it differently. In this analysis, I refer largely to my own experiences with OCD. They may not reflect your own. Please do not see this as an attempt to explain everything about OCD, or use this to tell other people they don't have OCD because it's not exactly what I'm describing.

(also a lot of this has screenshots of Benson looking at Randy with "wtf" face so hope you enjoy that)

You're Probably Wrong About OCD (Here's What It Is)

Before we start, we need to understand what OCD is. "Oh, that's when you get really stressed out if things aren't clean, right?". No. It's not your fault if you think that, it's how most people think it is, but it's not. Or at least, that's a very simplified version of it. Here's what it actually is.

OCD can manifest as an obsession (or a "theme") followed by a compulsion to try and ease the distress caused by an obsession. These compulsions are usually illogical, an extreme example being "I need take an equal amount of steps on both feet when I'm walking home from work every day or my grandma might die". Themes, as well, are varied. They are sometimes very taboo - for example, one might experience intrusive thoughts along the lines of "what if you caused serious bodily harm to your partner?" or "what if you are secretly a sexual predator?". A compulsion that usually follows these thoughts is rumination, imagining scenarios where these thoughts are correct and you have to defend yourself in court, for example. If you know somebody who experiences themes like these, please understand it is not a reflection of who they are as a person. They are experiencing intrusive, unwanted thoughts, and they need your support, not your judgement.

Now, let's get to Randy's theme - false memory/real event. False Memory OCD is when your brain literally imagines a scenario for you and tells you it's real, usually a very upsetting one, and dares you to prove it wrong. Real Event OCD is when you are feeling immense guilt or shame over a real event that happened in the past which you are now obsessing over, usually in regard to your own morality ("this happened, I'm a bad person, I can never improve, I am defined by this"). The compulsion to "ease" these themes is usually the same; combing through memories to double check every possible detail of this memory to check if it's real/to check if it's as bad as you remember.

Randy is experiencing a combination of these: a real event that has since become twisted in his mind. He DID cause Miss Beard to lose an eye, but she did not crawl towards him on her knees bleeding and screaming after the fact, as shown in the opening scene. There are other logical fallacies to how Randy remembers the event too; for example, he's the only kid in the classroom when he remembers it. This wasn't the case in reality, and he even says this later when he's gained some confidence throughout the movie. But, as previously touched upon before, OCD can rob you of your rationality.

So now you know what OCD is, and why I think Randy has it. How do I know so much about false memory/real event OCD? Well, because I had/have it. More on that later, but first, let's have a look at Randy's journey in The Passenger and some specific moments that signal OCD to me.

"Your name is Bradley Bradley?": Randy and Over-acceptance

OCD can rob you of your ability to trust yourself and your own decisions. In an extreme case, it could even stop you from standing up for yourself in the most basic of circumstances, for example, correcting someone for getting your name wrong. Randy spent a year at Burgers Burgers Burgers wearing the wrong name badge because he didn't want to correct his manager.

When Randy accidentally injured Miss Beard, the lesson he took from it was that nothing good would come from him speaking up for himself or from making his own choices. "The last time I let myself react the way I wanted to, I ruined a person's life". He has since taken this to an extreme degree, and I argue he is following OCD's orders on that one: "you can't correct someone if they get your name wrong or you'll end up ruining their life too".

When Randy's manager finds out he's been using the wrong name for him, he shrugs it off. When Benson finds out:

Benson was a little too busy preparing to berate a service worker to respond to this (justice for Marsha), but you can imagine the thought process here is, "you let us all call you the wrong name for a year?".

That does not seem rational, does it? But here's the thing: OCD doesn't let you be rational sometimes.

"What are you saying to me? What are you trying to say?": Randy and Irrationality

This is also related to over-acceptance; OCD robs Randy of the ability to think rationally. This is especially noticeable when Lisa is first brought up. Benson asks why Randy and Lisa broke up, and Randy says "her cat died".

Benson has a similar response to what ours likely is: what the hell????

Of course we know that someone's cat dying is not a reason to break up with their significant other (unless it's an Angela and Dwight situation, RIP Sprinkles), but Randy is so deep in OCD and over-acceptance that this IS logical to him. He does not trust himself to think of that situation as irrational. He probably thinks something like "oh, getting dumped because her pet died is probably normal". He doesn't even ask anyone else if it's normal, he's just accepted it as something that has happened to him and makes no effort to challenge or change it, because by OCD's rules, if he does what he wants to do and asks further questions, he's going to ruin someone's life. That's what happened last time, and we don't want to repeat what happened last time, do we?

Ergo, through over-acceptance and irrationality adopted through the presence of OCD, "we broke up because her cat died" becomes a completely logical life event in Randy's world. Can't question it, a bad thing will happen if you question it.

But Benson questions it! A lot! This will be important when discussing Benson's approach to ERP, but first, let's talk about OCD and responsibility.

The Shooting: Randy and Responsibility

Here's one of my least favourite parts about OCD: the way it assigns responsibility to you for everything bad that happens. I can't even read the news without my OCD blaming me for whatever the criminal of today's headlines did. Don't even get me started on YouTuber and influencer drama; my OCD loves accusing me of those guys' crimes!

My heart breaks so much for Randy during the shooting, especially on a rewatch: there is no way he's not blaming himself for what happened.

He's the one that spoke up and asked Chris to stop making him uncomfortable, and following a chain of events, Benson shot Chris and everyone in the restaurant except for Randy. This is never confirmed, but seeing Randy after it happens, all I can think is "oh God. He's blaming himself."

Randy says later that the only time he let himself react the way he wants to, he ruined a person's life. Randy has just let himself react the way he wanted to. Now three people are dead.

We are, of course, not in control of how others respond to our actions. Randy asked Chris to stop making him uncomfortable, he did not take a gun and shoot three people dead. That was Benson. But I really do think Randy sees himself as a little responsible here, and that breaks my heart. To him, his worst fear just came true, his OCD has been proven right: he can't speak up for himself or he ruins lives.

But here's the thing; exposing yourself to your worst fears is exactly how you overcome OCD. This is where Benson the weird, violent therapist comes in.

"Do you see what happens when you do nothing?": Benson and Exposure and Response Prevention

Benson might have the most "don't try this at home" method of this therapy I've ever encountered, but there's no denying he got the job done!

In order to recover from OCD, you have to do "exposures". You have to expose yourself to what you are afraid of in order to train OCD to stop using it to scare you. For example, if OCD has convinced you that you can't touch a certain object for fear of getting a disease from it that you then spread to your entire family and kill them all, the solution is to get your hands ALL OVER that object, and then not wash your hands. That's the "response prevention" part. Another "response" could be reassurance seeking; for example, if you touch the object and then immediately ask everyone if you look like you're getting sick. Reassurance seeking is very discouraged in OCD recovery, as is reassurance giving.

What Randy has to do to overcome his OCD theme is accept what happened, and not engage with rumination. Accept that it happened, but that the world kept going, and that nothing good is going to come from robbing himself of his own life because of something that happened in the past.

Extreme violence and several crimes aside, this is exactly what Benson does for Randy.

Randy, in his mind, began the chain of events that caused the shooting. Of course, this isn't the case; Benson was on the absolute brink and this is just what caused him to snap. But here's the thing: unintentionally, and in a very fucked up way, Benson exposed Randy to what he was afraid of. And prevented a response.

Randy spoke up for himself, and three people got shot. Lives are ruined, just like OCD always told him would happen. Benson doesn't immediately tell him why he's just shot three people - he doesn't offer reassurance. He lets Randy sit with the thought. Randy has no choice but to accept what has happened, whether it was his fault or not.

Here's an example of Benson straight up denying Randy the chance to seek reassurance. Consider the diner scene again:

Randy: What does this have to do with me? [subtext: "Would the shooting have happened if not for me?]

Benson: You mean why are you here right now? [subtext: "We're not doing reassurance right now. Here's what I actually think you need to hear."]

OCD was right, as far as Randy knows. Benson isn't disputing this. And yet, the world kept turning. Exposure number one.

You can already see Randy get a little bit of confidence after this event. In the car on the way to Benson's, Randy tells Benson that his mother had him repeat the 2nd grade, and when Benson gives him a speech about needing to stand up for himself, Randy says "I was only seven".

Randy has probably never spoken that way to anyone in his life, let alone someone he just saw commit a homicide. He has CERTAINLY never defended himself for past actions based on his young age at the time, either; he's spent most of his life torturing himself over something he did when he was seven. But suddenly, the irrational brutality of OCD is cracking a little, and he can see: he was only seven. In a fucked up way, being exposed to his worst fear via the shooting has allowed Randy to see through the haze of OCD, if only for a little while, and realise what everyone else can see: he was only a child. This confidence continues to grow throughout the movie, leading to a moment where Randy feels brave enough to approach Benson, who is waving a gun around in a state of despair and anguish, and manages to convince him not to fire it. This is very different from the Randy we saw at the beginning of the movie, and I argue it's through Benson's exposures that he got there.

Benson continues to put Randy in very high-stress situations, confronting Lisa and then going to visit Miss Beard, the source of his current and most debilitating OCD theme, and in reality this would not be an ideal way to deal with it. It's too much too soon (graded exposure is the way to go in reality), and if this was real life, Randy would probably end his day with Benson feeling much, much worse than he did before due to sheer overstimulation. But this is a movie, and we're with these characters for a day. In the course of that day, I argue we see a really good fictionalised version of OCD recovery.

The way Benson reacts to Randy throughout the movie is really interesting to me. He not only challenges Randy's OCD-influenced thoughts in a way Randy has never allowed himself to ("what, she said 'I can't date you because my cat died?'"), but often finds a middle ground between reassurance and agreeing with OCD. For example, Benson often reacts with laughter when given details on Randy's "2nd grade incident". This may not be the most sensitive or ideal middle ground (and other Tumblr users have argued given Benson's own experiences when he was around Randy's age, he's laughing more in relief than dismissal), but it is certainly a middle ground. Plus, when Randy's OCD sees Benson responding to Randy's worst ever deed with laughter, resembling joy, OCD may be inspired to leave Randy alone a little regarding haunting flashbacks to a twisted version of what actually happened. OCD doesn't expect that response, and that has the potential to reroute Randy's obsessive thought patterns.

And then, there's the actions Benson carries out to make Randy actually do exposures and prevent avoidance behaviours (Benson is, of course, mostly preventing Randy from avoiding exposures through the act of having a gun, but you know). Randy has been avoiding asking Lisa why she broke up with him, because OCD has convinced him he doesn't need a reason and that things are just allowed to happen to him. Benson makes Randy ask her. Randy is afraid to see Miss Beard again, for fear that she hates him and that he will find her with a ruined life. Benson facilitates their reunion, and Randy finds out that his OCD was lying to him. While Benson has gone about it in a hostage-situation kinda way, over the course of a day, Randy has done everything he's spent years being too afraid to do. Benson gave Randy fucked up ERP. Benson is his weird, violent therapist.

But, this isn't all. Benson gave Randy his weird version of help because he did not think Randy would ever be brave enough to stand up for himself against Benson. But he was.

Interlude: This Seems Not Very Straight

If you're somehow on Tumblr reading about The Passenger and don't know this, this movie is often interpreted as queer. And just to clear up my stance on that: yes. Of course it is.

"Oh but Randy says he's not gay!". Yeah, so did the guys from Brokeback Mountain. Means nothing to me. I'm Roland Barthes-ing this movie enough already, why WOULDN'T I be for making it gay?

source. if no one else got me, Kyle Gallner got me.

So, back to my mental illness!

"I was never in charge, Randy": Benson is a Passenger, Too

Here's a difficult truth: if you are constantly telling your friend that they have to stand up for themselves, and they need to be more assertive, once they learn those skills, they will 100% use them on you if you have mistreated them or others, and you have to be prepared for that. Benson was not.

Benson is probably the closest thing Randy has ever had to a meaningful relationship that wasn't a relative, and vice versa. Both characters become deeply important to each other throughout the film, but there's still a lot of toxicity there. Benson may be helping Randy do exposures, but he is also constantly punching him and ordering him around at gunpoint. Randy recognises this behaviour as not being right from the start, hence how terrified he looks in the beginning, but isn't about to visibly get mad at the guy holding the gun. (Though I will say, the moments where Randy allows himself a moment to fix Benson with a cold, hard "why are you doing this to me" glare are magical. He looks so mad. Little angry cat look.).

But Benson "creates a monster". Over the course of the movie, Randy's confidence grows little by little the more time he spends with Benson, the more time he spends confronting his past, and eventually that works against Benson. Randy calls the cops on him, and I urge you to pay attention to Randy's reaction after he does it.

Randy can't believe he's done it. Benson can't believe he did it; later, when he's looking for who called the cops, he doesn't even consider Randy, who was the only one that could have. It's just so unbelievable to him that Randy would do this; it does not line up with the person Randy was in the beginning of this movie.

Randy did it; he's finally brave enough to stand up for himself and make his own decisions. He doesn't want it to come at Benson's expense, and you can see that in this scene as well, and later when he calls out to Benson when the latter is headed out to face the cops. It's switching between joy and fear; the adrenaline that comes from doing what you're afraid to do as a person with OCD cannot be understated. The high is incredible, but the fear that comes with it is overwhelming. All of that is portrayed here.

And then Randy goes out and says, "Benson, I need to talk to you". Not "we need to talk". Randy prioritises himself and his needs. He's brave enough to do that now. And he says all sorts of things that Benson doesn't want to hear; "there's no point to what you're doing", and that for all Benson's talk about taking risks and standing up, he has barely left the town he grew up in all day, even though he has a very good reason to (Benson is currently on the lam). Randy has realised that perhaps Benson needs to practice what he preaches and do a little more of what he's afraid to do.

And Benson doesn't appreciate it at first. "Who the fuck are you to talk to me like this, after everything I've done for you?!" This is the first and most obvious response, "I helped you, you're not supposed to use that help against me! I'm in charge!"

And then, once it becomes clear that Randy used what he learned from Benson to drum up the courage to call the cops, the real response comes:

"I was never in charge, Randy."

The audience has very recently learned that Benson too suffered a terrible trauma as a child. It is not one that is as easily fixable as Randy's. It's damaged Benson too much, and Benson has known this whole time that he can't really fix it or himself. He damned himself with the shooting at the fast food restaurant. He snapped and can't go back. All he's known for sure is that he could help Randy. One last good deed.

Benson is a passenger, too. Benson was under the command of his own trauma this whole time, just like Randy. The difference was that Randy internalised his and punished himself, while Benson externalised his and he exploded like a grenade. Randy was maybe ten years and a few bad nights of sleep from doing something similar; Benson saw that and tried to stop it.

And that's the kicker: everyone is someone's passenger, even Benson was a passenger in the end. But in his own fucked up way, Benson broke the cycle: he fixed Randy. No matter what happens now, he went out having helped someone.

Benson is a weird, violent therapist. But he got results!

"Thanks, for... thank you": Life 'After' OCD

The reality is that with OCD, once it's done with one theme, it'll usually just move onto another. That's what happened to me; once I'd confronted my original false memory/real event, OCD just moved onto something else. But you know what? I was ready for it. And so was Randy.

No matter what way you swing it, you cannot deny that the life Randy has at the end of this movie likely would not have happened without Benson.

If you asked Randy at the beginning of this movie to play the eraser game with you, he probably would have thrown up on the spot just from the stress of you possibly knowing about what he'd done. And here he is, playing it with Miss Beard's daughter, someone he couldn't even imagine existed because having a daughter would have meant Miss Beard had a life after the incident, something he could never comprehend under OCD's spell. Randy tells his mother as he's leaving Miss Beard's house that he's going to get dinner with his friends. He has friends! They probably know his real name! Because he's brave enough to tell them!

And the thing is, you can see Randy appreciate this, and appreciate Benson. He hasn't forgotten Benson; the stuffed animals they made sit proudly among Miss Beard's daughter's playthings. Randy says 'thank you' to Miss Beard, for forgiving him and for allowing him the chance to move on, and I like to think the 'thank you' was also for Benson, too; Benson's methods may have been... unique, to say the least, but you can't deny the results!

Conclusion

I could not believe what I was seeing when I first saw The Passenger. There I was, in the dark depths of OCD, terrified to tell people about my false memory/real event themes for fear of being shunned and rejected or (because OCD likes to get irrational) imprisoned. But then I saw this movie, I saw this character, in the depths just like I was. And I'd never seen anything like it before. I couldn't stop crying. Someone made an OCD recovery movie. With queer undertones, no less! I was being well fed indeed!

And then, Benson reached over and wiped a tear from Randy's cheek and gently told him that he shouldn't be punishing himself for what happened. And then I thought, should I still be punishing myself? I got therapy. And I confessed my own false memory/real event to my therapist. And she didn't call the cops. She didn't yell obscenities at me. She comforted me. She taught me how to heal, and how to live. Without punching me in the stomach outside an elementary school! Didn't know OCD therapists could do that!

I interpret this movie as fucked up ERP. Like, really fucked up ERP. Violence and murder and abusive boyfriends ERP. But, this is the movie that helped me get the help I need. I wouldn't change a thing about it. Someone made it in a lab for me, and I'm so, so grateful. My weird little mentally ill gay movie. I cannot thank it enough.

And I cannot thank you enough for reading this!

[ariadne-mouse]

Continuing my Liliana flip thread (1, 2) I think after the exchange between Liliana and Imogen/Bell's Hells in episode 92, we are still solidly in the territory where we'd need a present and urgent life-or-death choice about Imogen for Liliana to flip, situationally, to save her, as opposed to being able to change her ideology. She's so steeped in the Vanguard, Ludinus's influence, and the siren call of Predathos that despite her stated criticisms and misgivings and false starts of listening to Imogen ("I don't know what to do"/"what's more useful to you? If I go or stay here? they'll know if I go, what will happen if I'm not here"/relief at staying despite some desire to go) that when push comes to shove she just doesn't see another way for things to go. Flat out. It's "I'm too deep in this to just walk away", not quite sunk cost fallacy, even, because she doesn't seem to think any alternative to releasing Predathos could possibly be the better option. The party is right not to trust her for that! Every time they talk to her it's like shouting through deep water. Even her motivation for protecting Imogen has pitfalls (previously discussed; in her mind freeing Predathos is protecting Imogen) that make it not aligned with what Bell's Hells wants to achieve, and she hasn't bit on the opportunities she's had to substantively change her mind.

I will say, while it would be interesting for Liliana to flip and I would find it cathartic if she did at the right moment, she doesn't need to flip to continue being a compelling character. She's tragic, complicated, stubborn, awful in several respects (compliment), and very skillfully portrayed by Matt. The fact that Imogen can make a billboard plea for her estranged mother to change and highlight all the hypocrisy and damage she has caused, and suggest possibility of a happy reunion and future of some kind ("run away with me"), and Liliana will smile that sad smile and say she loves Imogen and will try to help maybe and feels guilty about the harm but no, she's not convinced to alter her course - that is something that triple underlines the richness of her characterization and history. You bet I'll roast her for it in calling a spade a spade and in that pseudo in-universe way of rooting for the party from their point of view, but it's not mutually exclusive with liking her as a character, examining the very human reasons why she's Like That, and appreciating her role in the narrative. I consider them inextricable, personally, and I enjoy Liliana a lot including and especially her antagonism. Flip or no flip I'm in!

[venjamyra]

Lyrics – Same Shade as Concrete by Circle Takes the Square

WOLFWOOD WEDNESDAY (～￣▽￣)～

feels a little funny to be making fanart of a manga that started before I was born with music that came out when i wasn’t even one year old yet…

lineart and various inane ramblings (manga spoilers ahead) about this comic that haunts my mind below the cut (its a lot…)

Okay, here’s the line art for anyone who wanted to see it without spoiler talk:

wow, so cool. Sometimes I like the lineart better in some ways and the colored version in other, different ways… I wonder how to find a good middle ground…… such are the mysteries of life

Onto the brain rot!!!

Okay, so this whole piece is kind of showing Wolfwood’s journey toward ‘accepting’ that he is an assassin. He has killed people. And his belief that he is irredeemable, this is just who he is now, stained with blood.

I’m gonna talk about panels 1,2,3, and 4. Those are just in order from top to bottom, so panel 1 is him firing the gun, and panel 4 is him in the river of blood.

So panel 1 is establishing that this is teenage Wolfwood, and he’s killing someone. YES I used that one painting as a reference (The Fallen Angel by Alexandre Cabanel). I don’t know anything about it, but it looks cool and I like the idea of an apparently evil character crying dramatically. Throw a gun in the mix and you have me curled up in a ball crying about Wolfwood. Wolfwood isn’t crying here, but I hope the reference shows the implication that he’s crying internally.

Panel 2 is directly contrasting with panel 4 with the volume of blood. I chose the blood to just barely cover his hands on purpose, NOT just so that I didn’t have to draw more hands lmao. Lots of blood on his hands symbolism throughout, because he has his whole thing about it. Anyway, this is like, the specific amount of blood where Wolfwood finally feels too far gone. It’s reached his hands, he can’t come back from this.

shout out to the people who helped me find this panel earlier 😅 @markcampbells @grymmdark

The crosses are there to establish his being surrounded by the Eye of Michael, trapped into this pool of blood. I know with the three crosses there’s some heavy crucifixion symbolism going on. It was honestly unintentional, but if I had to come up with something for it, I’d say in Wolfwood’s mind in this moment, he is the one crucifying people (Jesus, whomever). Again with that ‘too far gone’ stuff. He ‘knows’ who he is now, and it is not a savior. I’m not Christian as an adult and the only thing I did in Sunday school was question the adults or quietly judge them for their logical fallacies so idk if this makes sense in Bible-lore 😭 lol sorry.

Panel 3 hits home on the bloody hands thing, big motif. And then the gun pokes through the panel to give us this connection to the final panel, where we see a second drop of blood, coming from Wolfwood’s own hand, presumably filling the river he’s in. So the entire river is made specifically of blood from his hands, not just blood he spilled.

Panel 4. The big one. Okay, I heard that willow trees represent peace. I don’t know if this is bullshit, but I guess they can mean whatever I want ✨. Wolfwood is not fighting the flood here, just floating along, basically. He’s not relaxed, he hates this. But he’s come to some kind of acceptance. He feels (false) peace that this is just who he is. If he doesn’t get to control who he is or what he does, at least he knows that. This is not the time or place that I’d like to talk about themes of control and bodily autonomy in Trigun--we’d be here forever lol--but its totally that stuff. The willow trees contrast with the crosses here. It is no longer the Eye of Michael holding him in, trapping him in this pool of blood. Now, the willow trees (peace, acceptance) that are grown from his own mind/coping methods are what keep him trapped. I like to imagine the crosses are still beyond the trees, causing the trees to serve as both a wall keeping Wolfwood in and a wall keeping the antagonism of the Eye of Michael out. This is also visual because willow trees look much nicer than mysterious creepy crosses.

The comic basically ends where Wolfwood begins in Trigun. Yeah, he’s got his silly moments, but on a deeper, less superficial (sub-superficial…ficial…?) level, he really believes himself to be stuck in life, unable to change. In the last panel, he’s naked because he’s vulnerable; this isn’t the suit and a charming smile, this is him as he sees himself.

This idea of Wolfwood feeling acceptance with his shitty life drives me insane. In volume 8, after he kinda does his normal assassin work again, he is so fucking sad and angry. I think he tries to tap back into that idea of acceptance, but he can’t. He’s been through so much and seen so much with Vash that he just can’t accept it anymore. Like with the song lyrics as they’re used in this comic, is someone (Eye of Michael, Chapel) goading him into standing in this pool of blood and staying there even as it rises. And then here, he gets a little taste of freedom and just fucking pulls himself out!!! If I feel inspired I could make a part 2 one day where he’s pulling himself out of the blood river or something idk.

All manga panels are courtesy of Trigun Manga Overhaul!

Oh and some fun drawing things before I go. Important disclaimer: I do not claim to know what I’m doing.

The first pic has the guidelines I used to create shape and draw attention. I saw someone say that using simple shapes helps with composition so I’ve been trying that? It seems cool, I like it. And the second one has my lines to remember where my light source is. I kind of shade based on vibes, which I want to work on, but for now is fine. But the idea is that even though each of these panels has days/weeks to years between them, they all have one light source that extends across the comic. It comes across as a ‘lower’ source relative to Wolfwood in the first panel, which feels dramatic. By the time we get to the last panel, it comes across as the sun, high in the sky. I did this because it felt cool.

okay love and peace and go listen to the emo music my older brother showed me yippee!!!

[shrubmogai]

What do you define as “race transitioning”? Because getting a tan or lightening skin, participating in cultural things, and styling hair certain ways are harmless. Also race and ethnicity are not the same race is a social construct while ethnicity is a genetic thing. Anybody of any ethnicity could fall into any racial category. Do you equate tanning to the same thing as black face?

ignoring the fact that this question is obviously in bad faith, several of those things aren't harmless. bleaching skin can be extremely dangerous, participating in closed cultural practices is very bad, and styling your hair in ways that are exclusive to certain cultures is also very bad. "race transitioning" is pretending to be a different physical race or doing things that intentionally cause people to think you're a different physical race (including if many people inform you that what you're doing is race faking and you continue anyways).

"Do you equate tanning to the same thing as black face?" is a logical fallacy of false equivalence, and a strawman fallacy. no one is saying "tanning is racist". i'm not going to bother discussing this because i simply never said anything like that, and i'll leave it at that.

yes, race is a social construct. in fact, the reason why you can't "transition race" is because race is inherently a racist concept (as ironic as that sounds). race as a concept was created to divide people, and claiming you can "transition" to a different race is upholding the idea that "race" is an actual thing that exists, that "black" and "white" as categories are real. by claiming you are "transitioning race" you are claiming that race, something that was created to oppress people, is something that can be physically changed.

taking from my own culture, i am native american. native americans were forced to speak english, lighten their skin, cut and straighten their hair, wear white people's clothes, and eat white people's food. this was in an attempt to turn them white, or "civilized". there were also quite a few natives who did this voluntarily in order to gain privilege with white people and become "one of the good ones". i ask you, anon and everyone else who believes in "race transitioning", if you believe that when you do all of these "race transitioning" things you become that race, did white people truly make all those native americans white too? did the people who did it voluntarily become white? i ask this genuinely.

race was a concept created to oppress people, and not in a salvageable way that gender was. "race transitioning" is an integral concept in racism itself - the idea that you can change someone's race to white to make them more "civilized". blackface is often talking about in these kinds of discussions, but blackface wasn't historically actual race transitioning. there are many, many cases of white people forcing other races to "become white" and even non-white people trying to "become white" so that they won't experience racism anymore.

the end goal of the concept of "race" is to have the only race be white. often, that is through murdering other races, but sometimes, that is through "race transitioning". the idea that you can transition to a different race has always furthered racism.

[philosophicalconservatism]

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said that the worst way to hurt a cause is to attempt to rescue it with knowingly fallacious arguments.

There are some Conservatives who seem to think that sympathizing and even allying themselves with so called Red Pill ideology is a good idea because that ideology is also critical of modern Feminism like Conservatives are. What they are in essence saying is that they know that the ideology is wrong and unhealthy, but they will still look to it to play some delivering role within the culture. They are saying that a dark and distorted version of masculinity has something to offer despite what it is, simply because of what it is not.

But a false solution can leave people disillusioned and ultimately send them back into the arms of the opposing ideology once the promises of that false solution have been debunked.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"Then you should understand people choosing the bear"

I'm a sexual assault survivor. When I was 15, a 55-year-old woman assaulted me and three of my friends at a party where she served a bunch of 15-year-olds alcohol. Way to go Granny.

And I don't hate women. I've stepped in to defend women against attacks from men in city streets or bars. I can't say if they're all sexually related or sexually motivated - they probably were.

But when we get to the question of this, I mean, like I do empathize for victims. I get that.

But the question isn't real. And we all know the question isn't real. It's hypothetical.

I was just at a store. There are hundreds or thousands of people at this Walmart, men and women walking around, doing their thing minding their own business. Not a single woman in there was shifty eyed, dysphoric or afraid of any of the men in that store.

I was just at a restaurant. I was at a bank. I was at a coffee shop. I was walking through a park. No one was afraid of men.

Replace any of those men with one bear and see what happens.

So, because we know it's hypothetical, let's have an adult conversation. Ready?

The existence of the question at all creates bias against men. I can trick you just the same way. I'd say, what do you think more Islamic men use to murder their wives with, guns or knives or rope?

The fact that I asked the question, you go, well why is he asking that question? Do they murder their wives a lot?

The queston is: safety, bear, man, alone. Right, those are the four real words in that question. It is embedding a bias against men. Every woman that has answered that question "bear" has stepped out in public since, has interracted with hundreds of men. The average woman will interact with 300 men per day.

Maybe they'd opted for the bear just cause they wanna mix it up. They're like, I'm getting so bored with the thousands of men that I see every week that maybe I just wanna see a bear.

I don't think you understand the gravity of this question. As a abuse survivor, I'm standing up against a false claim against the nature of men, where one in a thousand men - or maybe just a hair over one in one thousand men - will commit a crime of this nature. It's a very thin number of men.

And as a man whose family was responsible for starting World War I - you know, the assassination by the Black Hand, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, my family paid for that assassination. We started World War I, which is why World War II happened. Because I'm so closely tied to that genocide, I've studied it.

And, Hitler and the Germans use the same type of questionings and comparative logic to wage war against Jews. I am literally trying to stop thousands of women who don't know any better but than to participate in a trend from creating this wave of propaganda against men.

Someone is trying to use this question against men, and women think it's a cool, dramatic way to say, "I'm afraid of men." But they're really actually not afraid of men. Cause they wouldn't go outside. They wouldn't go shopping. They wouldn't walk through the park. They wouldn't do anything. They'd be so actually mortified of men.

The question appeals to a logical fallacy called the Fallacy of Relative Privation. They're trying to say that because a single man could do more harm than a single bear, that all men are more dangerous than all bears on average. Regardless of the context of the interaction. That strips away all sense of goodwill or truth to the fact that women interact with 300 men per day on average. That strips away the truth that a woman, per male exposure, if you walk down the sidewalk and you see a guy, you have a 1 in 35 million chance of being forcibly [g]raped in that walk by on the sidewalk.

That Fallacy of Relative Privation strips all logic to the fact that men are, by and large, safe. But yeah, 81% of women will report being sexually harassed or assaulted. 43% of men just the same.

The number of people who will experience unwanted sexual contact, men and women, are roughly the same[**]. Men will underreport at three times the rate of women. Men are victimized just as much, but we're stigmatized against talking about it.

Both sides are victims, but men are not doing this campaign to smear women to try to damage the entire, like, gender of women.

Except for me, now. I'm doing what's called logical parallels. My whole argument for the last two weeks has been such: since women assault children, their children, their biological kids at 2.5 times the rate that all men assault women sexually, then women should lose custody of their kids until they stop it. Because, the phrase going around online right now is all men until no men. So, until no women, all women. Women do not deserve custody of their biological kids if any of them are capable of harming a child. Because children are innocent and honestly, all parallels aside, it's the abuse of children that is propagating people who are becoming monsters later on in life.

So, if anyone could make a decision right now to make the world a better place in the next 15 years, it's women not abusing their kids. It's already too late for us as adults. We're already screwed. We all have our trauma that we have to work through, and that's gonna be a dog fight. But if we wanna guarantee the world's gonna be a better place, let's stop abusing kids.

So, the reason why women are choosing the bears is cause it's not a real question and they won't have consequences if they answer in a dramatic way for effect.

Just like the 30-something percent of boys are like, well, dude, if like, there's no consequences, I'd totally take advantage of a chick. See, yeah, maybe people are bad people by nature, but people still obey the law. And that's why if 32% of college men would commit SA if there's no consequences, but then only one out of every thousand men will commit that crime, that shows how much people have discipline over their nature.

And you cannot say the same thing about a bear.

==

** The following numbers are taken from the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) from 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016/2017.

--

P.S. I'll just leave this here.

[incognitopolls]

Brief definitions:

Ad Hominem: Trying to undermine the opponent's arguments by using personal attacks rather than logical argument

False Dilemma: Presenting two alternative states as the only possibilities when more possibilities may exist

Bandwagon: Presuming that a proposition must be true because many believe it to be true/everyone else is doing or saying it

Incomplete Comparison: Comparing two things that aren't really related, in order to make something more appealing than it would be otherwise

Strawman: Misrepresenting an argument so that it becomes easier to attack

False Cause: Citing sequential events as evidence that the first event caused the second

Slippery Slope: Claiming that a single event will lead to a series of events that would lead to one major event, or that event A will lead to event B which must lead to event C and so on until event Z

False Analogy: Assuming that if two things or events have similarities in one or more respects, they are similar in other properties too

Guilt by Association: Connecting an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit their argument

Hasty Generalization: Making a claim based on evidence that is too small to prove the claim

–

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[anamericangirl]

Speaking of false analogy fallacy, I once saw a post where progressives compared hormones and 'trans' surgeries on kids with... kids playing sports. Their whole 'argument' was "If you're against children having 'gender-affirming care', you should be against children doing any kind of sport at all, because sports are also dangerous and sport-related accidents can cause long-lasting trauma and irreversible damage. But we're not banning children from sports, yet we have transphobic laws banning them from hormones!!" I wish I was making it up. Those people clearly don't know how the world functions.

The fact that these people can’t defend their outrageous position without making such irrational leaps in logic just confirms how wrong and stupid they are.

[honesty-my-policy]

Part One of publicly rebutting people from the comments & reblogs of this post:

First off @bookwyrm314 has been fighting tooth and nail, yes, I am going to call out people who are defending terrorists who in their charter call for the genocide of Jews, blaming them for everything that ever happened in the world (hi Nazi playbook) and just the general lack of any acceptance of peace. link to their charter that if you haven't read or even skimmed... why are you backing a group you know nothing about? HAMAS CHARTER

Okay to be honest i copied and pasted the comment thread into chatgpt cause the original thread was really wordy & repetitive, with lots of detailed examples & emotional appeals. it was hard to follow after seeing it all in one place. i wanted to shorten it to just the main points.

The difference between war and genocide is that war involves two military groups, while genocide involves a military group targeting civilians, which is happening in Gaza. War has rules: you don’t target civilians, especially children, or pen millions into a single city and starve them. That's ethnic cleansing, not war. The IDF is shooting children and forcing an entire population on a march to Rafah, then bombing the city. This is genocide, not war.

The logical fallacies are off the charts for the entire argument but I'll play.

False Dichotomy = Black-and-White Thinking or presenting a situation as only having two possible categories (war or genocide) without acknowledging the complexities and nuances of the conflict.

What a hasty generalization or generalizing the actions of the entirety of the IDF, as well as the whole conflict with no evidence to back it up. It's also a nice appeal to emotion, which yeah, we should use emotions it is what makes us humans but what truly makes us humans is having emotions but not letting them dictate what we do or think.

Colonization isn’t a justification for ethnic cleansing. It’s insane to say, "You should have ceded your country to colonialism for peace." There are 1.5 million displaced and starving Palestinians. Mass murdering civilians and claiming there were terrorists among them is a war crime. Hiroshima was genocide because it mass-murdered a city. War involves two military groups, not civilians. This situation isn’t war; it’s military versus civilians. Hamas isn’t the children or the city of Rafah.

This is a straw man. You've misrepresented my argument or maybe based on the arguments below not understood that Israel is an indigenous people of the land, they also accepted a two state solution but the Arabs didn't, which led to the Nakba. I explained all of this but you replied with this which is why I say this is a straw man.

Another appeal to emotion instead of actual facts or references. For the record, you stated earlier that war was ugly, this is part of war.

Hiroshima is a false equivalence, you are equating two very different historical events without even acknowledging the significant differences in context and nature. The second bit is circular reasoning, you are assuming what you are trying to prove without providing any evidence.

Another bit of black-and-white thinking, as if civilians have never waged wars in history or things might be more complex in this situation.

Palestine has existed since families bought land from the Mongols in the 14th century. British colonization doesn’t erase that history. Forcing Palestinians to Rafah, starving, and bombing them is a deliberate strategy, not war. Killing civilians creates more terrorists, not fewer. It looks like an attempt to eradicate a nation. The IDF is blocking aid and killing those bringing food. Forcing people to walk across the country with nothing is like the Trail of Tears. It’s ethnic cleansing.

You are appealing to antiquity/tradition as though because something had historical precedent it should be valid or justifiable in the current context. The Jews do the same but they don't go around in their official charter saying that everyone else are infidels, that one specific group is the reason for every bad thing that happens in the world or that until all Arabs everywhere in the world are dead the 'day of judgement' isn't going to come. So... think on that.

To be honest this has nothing to do with anything. It's a non sequitur.

You present another situation with black-and-white thinking, as though there are only two possible categories, ignoring once more the complex nuances of conflict.

This is a classic slippery slope way of thinking. You are suggesting that killing any civilian ever will inevitably lead to the creation of more terrorists without any evidence for this progression happening.

You again assume what you are trying to prove - that there is an attempt to eradicate a nation - without any sufficient evidence.

A final appeal to emotions.

You claim I lack empathy for civilians, but I can distinguish between soldiers and civilians. Your "whataboutism" shows you care more about winning an argument than understanding the truth. Citizens shouldn’t be targeted, that’s a global rule. Were child victims like Hind child soldiers? The Holocaust had survivors; does that mean it wasn’t genocide? Your argument insults Jewish, Japanese, and Palestinian people. The IDF targeting civilians isn’t war; it’s mass murder. They admitted to waiting for targets to go home and killing entire families. Killing 300,000+ civilians is villainous. Making people walk a trail of tears and starving them is evil. Repeating Nazi tactics to win isn’t worth it. Fifty years ago, we’d agree Hamas is bad, but now Hamas is filled with Palestinians angry because the IDF killed their families. Bombing Palestine makes more angry survivors, not fewer. Killing civilians isn’t smart, and it seems like the goal is genocide.

Another straw man at the start, you aren't actually talking about the point.

Oooh! A new one! You decided to attack the character and motive instead of addressing the actual argument. That's an Ad Hominem. Another new one! A Red Herring! Diverting from the main argument and creating distractions instead of focusing on the main discussion.

You really do view the world entirely in black-and-white don't you? How easy life must be.

You also love to generalize the side you don't like without any evidence or nuance and not acknowledging any of the complexities of the situation.

And another slippery slope!

I was going to go through each point and provide evidence to refute everything but goddamn. For one, you provided no actual evidence, for two this entire thing was so laughable after reading it like this.

You are exactly who my original posts targets and that is why you were triggered.

[l0gic1]

Opinion: Lolicon/shotacon isn’t pedophilia, but it’s still bad.

Loli/shotacon isn't pedophilia, as it doesn’t involve the attraction to real-life children. Regardless, it’s still disgusting, as adults should not be attracted to or sexualizing minors in any context. At the same time, though, it’s not okay to say that the attraction between real children and fictional children is the exact same. I am definitely not one of those people who is like, "It's just fiction!"; I literally have spoken out against people who spew that rhetoric (like comshippers, for example). However, to say that the attraction towards fictional children is completely equivalent to the attraction towards real children oversimplifies a complex issue. Saying that a paraphilic disorder that involves the attraction to real children and typically results in permanent harm towards real children is the same as an attraction towards fictional children that is still disgusting and potentially harmful is the very same is not only regressive but is damaging to CSA victims. I am in no way in favor of lolicon or shotacon; it sexualizes minors, often romanticizes CSA, can be used to groom vulnerable individuals, can offer a safe space for genuine pedophiles or give them free content to get off to, and can cause distress to survivors of child sexual abuse or just people who find that content rightfully upsetting. So, while I absolutely do not support lolicon or shotacon for the harm it inflicts and the inherent immorality I find in it, I think it's erroneous to assume that all individuals who consume this content are pedophiles or support child exploitation. It's a false equivalence to claim that people who experience attraction towards real children and typically harm them are the same people that do not experience attraction towards real children but do to fictional children. Many individuals engage with these materials without any attraction towards actual children. That does not mean that lolicon, shotacon, and other genres that sexualize minors are okay, as they are not; it just means that if we wish to educate pro/comshippers, lolicons, shotacons, dead-dove, and profic people on the potential harm and ethical concerns surrounding genres such as lolicon, we need to approach the conversation with nuance and understanding instead of relying on logical fallacies. If we wish to be taken seriously, we must engage in respectful and informed discussions that address the complex issues at hand. What I see a lot of people do on my (the anti-loli/shotacon and anti-pro/comship) side is simply refer to people who engage with this content as pedophiles. While it is important to acknowledge the potential harm and ethical concerns surrounding genres like lolicon, it is crucial to avoid labeling individuals who engage with this content as pedophiles without concrete evidence. By resorting to such generalizations, we undermine the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and understanding. Instead, we should focus on raising awareness about the potential impact of these genres on society and promoting responsible consumption of media.

Tldr: Lolicon, shotacon, and other forms of media that sexualize minors are unethical and deleterious, but not everyone who consumes such content is a pedophile. Calling every single person who likes that content a pedophile is unfair, fallacious, and intellectually dishonest. We can point out the harms of such content without resorting to addressing the people who enjoy it as people who like real children.