#The Case for Rational Compassion

[morpsychology]

We often think that empathy, our capacity "to feel someone's pain," is the ultimate source of goodness. Nothing could be farther from the truth, argues psychology professor Paul Bloom. Scientific studies show that empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that can cloud people's judgement and even lead to violence and cruelty.

[stardustdiiving]

I need to think of hat radish fic ideas that would suit having Nahida as the POV!!!!

I want to experiment with writing her especially since she’s my favorite between the two but all my fic ideas just…keep being more suited for Wanderer’s POV

[writers-potion]

Writing Female Fighters

The Heroine Must. Fight.

Today's female protagonists cannot sit on the side crying and breaking down or whimpering as the battle ensues.

Readers want to see autonomous female fighters who can at least defense themselves with courage and adequate skill.

Not all women are the same, but the heroine should get her butt moving.

Less Muscle, but More Flexibilty

The average woman is shorter than the average man, which makes it more difficult to wield a long sword or slam something down on the opponent's head.

A woman who works out can plausibly be stronger than a male couch potato, but if her male counterpart works out as much as her, the man is going to be much stronger.

On the other hand, the center of gravity in a woman's body is lower than a man's which makes it harder to knock her off her feet.

She is also more flexible, which gives her advantage in grappling fights, making use of complex landscapes, or deflecting blows.

A woman's small size can also be an advantage if her opponent has only ever trained with male opponents. His big hands might not get a good grip on her slender limbs.

In historical fiction, giving your heroine good muscule build can be tricky as exercise was generally considered harmful for women, with some exceptions for horseriding any maybe archery at best.

In such cases, make your heroine an accomplished dancer or an eager horsewoman, or the only girl whose father considered to be son replacement and thus, gave her a boy's education.

Women of lower classes who couldn't afford to be fashionably weak will be plausibly stronger, perhaps even more than an idle gentleman.

More Room for Negotiation, but Prolonged Ruthlessness

In the Suspense part of your fight scene, females are more likely to negotiate and talk more, strategically trying to descalate the situation rather than attacking on a momentary impulse.

Generally, women are less aggressive than men and remain level-headed longer than her male counterparts, opting for non-violent methods first before using force.

Exceptions apply if she is trying to protect her children (or someone who she cares for as a child). Mothers can be tigresses.

A female pre-fight conversation may be: "If you had not done so-and-so and betrayed me with so-and-so, we could have been good friends as I thought we would be." "What do you mean? It was in fact you who brought bad blood between us. I can still hear you laughing with so-and-so, taunting me, purposefully making me look bad -" "But that was so long ago! If you want me to say sorry about something so insignificant, you should have just said so: I'm sorry. There. Satisfied?" "Ha! I can't believe you say that so easily. You still don't get it, do you?" "Who's being petty and unreasonable now?"

A male pre-fight conversation will be shorter: "Who's the coward now?" "You're wrong." "Prove it." "Bastard."

Compared to men, it will take more time for a woman's fight hormones (adrenaline, neurotransmitters and such) to kick in.

She would be slower to engage initially, throwing reluctant punches and thinking, but she'll grow more and more violent and lose all rational thought and compassion, and once she's in full flow, may not stop even when her opponent begs for mercy.

When writing a male-female duo, you can show him going for the first blow while she observes and strategizes first. When he's past his peak and panting, she is flying about left and right. Later when the tension wears off and she becomes wobbly and teary, she can rely on him to have recovered faster and distract other teammates so that they won't see her cry.

Plausible Skills and Backstory

In many cultures and time periods, the general attitude of society towards girls is that they have no place in fist fights or martial arts, unlike how it is encouraged for boys of the same age. So if your heroine has physical prowess that surpasses typical 'fitness' or is hidden, build a backstory of how she's obtained it.

For modern heroines, it can be as simple as signing her up for martial arts classes or yearly membership at the local gym. For historical fiction or girls with strict 'feminine' upbringing, it can be trickier.

It can be related to profession: maybe she was an erotic wrestler, catfighter, or an assasin who thought killing was more honorable than prostitution. They may have dabbles with it for a short time and is now trying to hide their past from their respectable employer or fiance.

It can be family backstory: Perhaps her mother was an accomplished martial artist or she had to fend for younger siblings on the streets from an early age. Maybe she was the only girl in a family of many boys who refused to be the punching bag.

Inexperienced Female Fighters

A woman with no fighting experience or training is likely to resort to one of these on instinct:

Try to talk herself out of the situation, attempting to persuade or negotiate for her life.

Grab something to use as a weapon. This instinct seems to be stronger for women than it is in men.

Use her hands to try and break free, or kick (often wth little success)

Pull hair

Scratch.

In a serious fight, pulling hair and scratching won't be helpful, except when the police come to find her body, they would find the opponent's DNA under her fingernails.

Plausible Weapons and Clothing

All of the above applies to scenes where both parties have no weapons, or has the bare minimum (like one dagger each).

Weapons are equalizers, and if your heroine is pointing a gun at her opponent she will definitely NOT hesitate to be the one to shoot first.

When giving your female character a weapon, choose one she can plausibly use. It would take an unusually brawny woman to wield a great medieval longsword.

For historical fiction, give your heroine something she'll plausibly own. Swords and firearm were a no-go for women, but archery was borderline acceptable.

For clothing starters, you definitely CAN NOT dress her in a tight miniskirt and chainmail bra with long, flowy hair and multiple silver chockers. Unless she's trying to seduce her way into her opponent's bedroom, and he has a chainmail bra fetish.

A practical heroine will have her thighs covered, preferably with leather but at least with fabric, since a lot of blood flows through the thighs and a slash would be critical.

She'll keep her hair tied, tucked under a helmet, braided back, etc. so that it won't impede her vision.

She'll support her breasts with a strong sport bra. In a historical eprioid, she'll either tie her breasts tight with a fabric bandage or support them with some kind of leather corset.

Invent a female version of male fighter clothing of the time you are writing about if it doesn't exist.

If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 📸

[jaybird1306]

Last month, England and Wales took the first step towards legalising assisted dying (a separate bill is under consideration in Scotland, while Northern Ireland is described as “left behind” on the issue). After a five hour debate in Parliament, MPs voted by 330 to 275 in favour of the The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. As it stands, the bill would allow terminally ill adults with an expected six months left to live to end their own lives. They would have to make two separate declarations, signed by either themselves or a proxy (who can be someone who has known them for two years or someone of “good standing” in the community), and their eligibility would have to be confirmed by two doctors and a High Court judge.

The vote to approve this bill is being presented by supporters of the right to assisted death as a victory for dignity, compassion and bodily autonomy. The ultimate in the right to choose. And on these bases you might assume that I am one of those people. After all, I do believe in bodily autonomy. I hope it goes without saying that I believe in dignity and compassion in death as in life. And, of course, I believe fervently in the right to choose what happens to your own body.

But rather than these beliefs leading me to support this bill, they are in fact the reason that I have my doubts. Let me explain.

Like most good liberals, when I historically thought at all about assisted dying I considered myself to be in favour of it — although admittedly without having thought through any of the details. There is no doubt whatsoever that current end of life care leaves far too many people suffering a painful and undignified end. There is also no doubt that some people, out of fear of such an end, have ended their lives earlier than they might otherwise have chosen to, while they still had the ability to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland. Family members have faced the choice of letting their loved one travel and die alone in a foreign country, or to go with them and face the risk of prosecution on their return. None of this is humane. And legalising assisted dying seems like an obvious way to address these issues. That, in any case, was what I historically thought.

But a few years ago, doubts were introduced in my mind when I was a judge on the Royal Society of Literature’s Christopher Bland Prize. One of the books submitted to us was a memoir by Alastair Santhouse, a consultant neuropsychiatrist at The Maudsley Hospital in London. The book, Head First: A Psychiatrist’s Stories of Mind and Body, didn’t make the shortlist in the end, but it did make a lasting impact on me, most notably on my opinion of assisted dying.

Santhouse opens his section on the topic by recounting his first experience of a practice he was later to discover was so common it had a name: “granny dumping.” That is, the depositing of an unwanted elderly relative (the name suggests usually a female relative — we’ll come back to this) at a hospital over Christmas. The elderly woman in question here was brought in by her son and daughter-in-law who told Santhouse, “She just isn't right,” before leaving and turning off their phones. On her own, the woman, now in tears, told Santhouse there was nothing wrong with her. “They just don’t want me over Christmas.”

This episode may shock you as it did me. The thought of doing such a thing to my own mother causes me physical pain in my stomach and a lump in my throat. I simply cannot bear it. But, says Santhouse, the medical profession quickly disabused him of his “notions of people always behaving honourably or having respect for the elderly.” And it is his decades of experience, his repeated witnessing of this lack of honour and respect for older people, that makes him so implacably opposed to assisted dying.

While some may have taken a calm and rational choice to end their lives, there are an unquantifiable number of people who may be pressured or coerced into doing so. […] As they approach the end of their lives, people feeling unwell and scared can experience a pressure, spoken or implied, to let their families collect the inheritance that they would otherwise not get if they had to pay for medical or nursing home fees. They may also feel a pressure to release their families from the burden of caring for them. Vulnerable, frightened patients may only feel loved, accepted and valued by their families if they take the decision to end their lives by assisted suicide. — Santhouse (2021) pp. 206-7

As my parents have aged I too have witnessed some of this lack of honour and respect for older people in action. For example the time an impatient male carer made my strong, capable, fiercely independent mother cry when she was, in the immediate aftermath of a hip operation, feeling none of those things. I have also seen how quickly someone who is strong, capable and fiercely independent can suddenly become scared, uncertain and vulnerable when they lose their independence, even if, as with my mother, it was only temporary. It is far from unbelievable that someone in this state could be quite easily coerced into agreeing to end their own life. Rather, it is frighteningly believable. Indeed I personally know of at least one case where someone felt pressured (to my knowledge never overtly vocalised, but as Santhouse points out, this pressure does not need to be spoken to be felt) into arranging their own death, before at the last minute changing their mind. How many others have simply gone through with it?

Well, according to a recent report on assisted dying, “mercy killings” and failed suicide pacts, that is a question for which we do not have an answer and nor are we likely to get one any time soon. Written by the think-tank “The Other Half, the “Safeguarding women in assisted dying” report notes the “secrecy” that is “built into the latest assisted dying proposals in the UK.”

This is also true of countries thought to be exemplars like Oregon and the Australian states. In Oregon, death certificates do not include a note of assisted dying. All provider information on assisted deaths is deleted after the annual report is prepared. This simple data report does not, and would not, reveal the kind of abuses we fear here. In Canada, there are stories now emerging of families who have tried to prevent their relative being given MAID [medical assistance in dying] —as they believe they are not terminally ill. Families cannot get access to medical records to understand if their relative was coerced. The state protects itself and those who are involved in delivering death. — The Other Half (2024)

The abuse the authors of this report in particular fear is state-delivered domestic homicide — and not without good reason. Although the UK inexplicably only started including over 75s in domestic abuse statistics in 2020, we know that elder abuse is far from uncommon. We also know that women live more years than men in ill health, and that having a disability doubles a woman’s risk of being domestically abused. The law in England and Wales has also recently recognised suicide as an outcome of domestic abuse (indeed, data suggests it may be more common even than homicide) and has outlawed the “rough sex defence” through which men who killed their sexual partner via strangulation achieved leniency in prosecution and sentencing.

We cannot claim therefore to be ignorant of the clear vulnerabilities women face, nor of capacity of violent men to exploit the law to justify their abuse. And yet despite this knowledge, the potential for these laws to be used in the furtherance of violence against women has been shamefully absent from the assisted dying debate.

And not just here in Britain. The report highlights that most countries that have legalised assisted dying don’t even consider domestic abuse in their safeguards (which are mostly concerned with will beneficiaries), let alone collect or publish any data on the issue. Meanwhile, assisted dying campaigners in the UK have championed two male mercy killers with a history of domestic violence, one of whom had previously been imprisoned for bludgeoning his second wife with a mallet.

The result of this data gap on domestic abuse and assisted dying is that it’s hard to quantify exactly how widespread the problem is. We do have some indications, however. We know that in Canada, women “seem 2 times more likely to seek MAID track 2—which allows for those with non ‘reasonably foreseeable’ deaths to die” — that is, women who are not terminally ill. We know in Belgium that women dominate the figures of those given “psychiatric euthanasia.” Why are these psychologically troubled women so much more likely to seek death than their male counterparts? The data is silent on this issue, and the states in question seem in no hurry to uncover the reason behind the sex discrepancy.

In the Bill as it currently stands in England and Wales, assisted death for the mentally unwell would not be an immediate issue, since the law would apply only to terminally ill patients — but the example of countries that have gone before us shows how easily and quickly the concept of “terminal illness” can be and has been stretched.

…it is estimated that now 3 per cent of Belgian and Dutch assisted deaths are for psychiatric disorder. Psychiatric illness is not usually terminal and suicidal impulses are often part of the illness itself. To have a state-sanctioned way for such people to end their lives should be a cause of concern for everyone.

One study showed that 50 per cent of Dutch psychiatric patients asking to die had a personality disorder* (a very unstable diagnosis with symptoms sensitive to social pressures), a figure similar to that in Belgium. Twenty per cent had never been hospitalized because of mental health problems (which calls into question how severe they are) and, in 56 per cent of cases, loneliness and social isolation was thought to be an important factor. This in turn raises the question as to whether assisted suicide is being used instead of proper social and mental health care. Perhaps the most troubling statistic in the study was that in 12 per cent of cases in the Netherlands, the three assessors had not agreed unanimously on the decision, and yet the assisted death went ahead anyway. — Santhouse (2021) p. 209

This final statistic is echoed in a finding from The Other Half report, which notes that in Western Australia, guidance states that “feeling a burden” is meant to be a red flag for assessors determining a patient’s eligibility. But despite “more than a third of those approved reporting they felt a burden, Western Australian medics decided that everyone who applied for VAD was eligible in acting voluntarily and not being subject to coercion in 2023-24.” Which, to say the least, stretches credulity; as the authors of the report put it: “It is startling that despite the prevalence of domestic and elder abuse in Australia, the assisted dying safeguards for these picked up absolutely no one at all.”

Well, quite.

Santhouse also raises concerns about safeguarding, noting that “as the experienced expert who would be asked to undertake [safeguarding] assessments,” their presence is “no reassurance whatsoever.” It is, he writes, “extremely difficult to truly know someone's motives, including the motives in someone asking for assisted dying. This is particularly the case where the individual concerned is frightened, vulnerable or wants to please others, and do what they believe others want them to do.”

Source: The Other Half (2024)

[Image description: an excerpt from The Other Half, "The 2006 killing of Mandy Horne in Shetland was widely reported as a Romeo and Juliet, mercy killing by her husband - Mandy had MS. Both died so there was no investigation. Only through Mandy's father and a curious Times journalist was it later revealed to be a very violent murder and suicide by Mandy's husband: he's also killed their pets. The night before she died, Mandy had asked friends to stay because she was scared of her husband."]

But despite the failure of states that have legalised assisted dying to collect data on its intersection with domestic violence, we are not entirely without pertinent evidence. By combing through “news reporting, inquest findings, sentencing remarks and court of appeal judgements where killings and attempted killings were said by a judge, coroner or defence to be part of a mercy killing, or (failed) suicide pact,” The Other Half report authors have identified and reviewed more than 100 “mercy killings” and “failed suicide pacts” — and they make for sobering reading.

The Other Half’s research revealed that “at least 5 UK men per year violently kill women who are disabled, elderly or infirm, under the guise of mercy killings.” Eighty-eight per cent of the killers were male, overwhelmingly husbands and sons, and the killings were extremely violent, involving “cutting women’s throats, bludgeoning them, shooting them, or using stabbing, suffocation and strangulation.” One woman was thrown off a balcony by her son. Another was strangled with her dressing-gown cord by her husband. Many women had their throat slit. “Overkill,” the authors found, was frequent. Meanwhile, men are “overwhelmingly the survivors of ‘failed suicide pacts’.”

Having my throat slit, or being strangled with my dressing gown cord, or being thrown off a balcony does not sound particularly merciful to me, and whether or not you wish to die, it is hard to imagine anyone choosing to die in such a violent manner. But the vast majority of these women did not ever express a wish to die at all, let alone to die violently. 78% of them were not even terminally ill, being simply “disabled or elderly and infirm.” The report identified an increase in a woman’s care needs as a trigger for a mercy killing.

The majority of these men were let off with suspended sentences and sympathy from judges who repeatedly spoke of the “exceptional” nature of these strikingly similar cases (the report found that the few women who engage in “mercy killing” generally get a life sentence), with “very limited data, if any, data [being] collected by the state on these deaths, and no learning or curiosity.” One man let off with a suspended sentence had written the joint suicide note himself with no input from his wife; another had a history of domestic violence against his dead wife. And, let’s not forget, these lenient sentences all took place in a context where assisted dying is illegal. It’s also worth pointing out that this analysis would not have been possible if these mercy killings had taken place under the auspices of the new bill, because none of the information would be publicly available.

Source: The Other Half (2024)

[Image description: excerpt from The Other Half, The judicial safeguard: even criminal court judges are not able to spot patterns in so called mercy killings. Selected judicial remarks to mercy and failed suicide pact killers. "This is indeed an exceptional case" - Scotland husband smothered wife who'd returned home from hospital. "A tragedy for you...exceptional in the experiences of this court. You were under immense emotional pressure...you acted out of love." - Husband wrote his wife's suicide note then cut her throat. Suspended sentence. "I conclude the mental torment engendered by the impossible situation in which you found yourself must have been intolerable." - Husband strangled wife after she had broken her vertebrae and had been unable to look after him. Suspended sentence. "[The judge] decided to suspend the sentence due to the 'exceptional' circumstances" - Father helped his daughter take an overdose then suffocated her. She had been receiving (poor) inpatient mental health care in hospital. Suspended sentence. "It was, in part, an act which you believed to be one of mercy." - Husband knocked his wife out with a dumbbell then slit her throat. She had dementia. Suspended sentence. "the defendant was not coping with the strain of being the principle carer...I accept at the time he did believe he was doing what he believed to be an act of mercy." - Husband smothered wife with clingfilm. She had Parkinsons and had recently has a fall. Suspended sentence. "the case was exceptional and jail would not be appropriate" -Husband gave his wife an overdose of antidepressants and suffocated her in a plastic bag. "I accept in killing your wife you were doing so because you felt this was the only way to limit or prevent her suffering." - Husband pushed his wife down the stairs and then strangled her. She had dementia. Suspended sentence. "The taking of a life is always a grave crime, but the exceptional circumstances of this case require the court to show compassion." - Husband cut his wife's throat after her dementia worsened. Suspended sentence. "indeed true love...an exceptional case" - Husband attempted to bludgeon his wife to death with a hammer. Suspended sentence. "a most unusual and very sad case" - Husband struck his wife with an iron pole, then smothered her as she sat in bed. Suspended sentence. "You were convinced that she was suffering and it was more than you could bear." - Son threw his mother off a balcony as she was receiving end of life care. Suspended sentence.]

But what about all the people who are not coerced, you may be thinking at this point. Don’t they have a right to bodily autonomy? Don’t they have the right to choose?

To this I have two points, the first of which is that rights in a democracy must be balanced and the right of one person to willingly choose to end his life must be weighed against the right of another person to choose to continue with hers. Nothing about the debate so far, nor the bill in question, makes me at all confident that this balance has even been considered, much less achieved. As Sarah Ditum noted in her excellent piece in The Times, published shortly before the vote took place:

But for legislation that relies on the principle of informed consent, there seems to be a strange haste to get it on the books without fully investigating its implications. The full text of the bill was published last Tuesday; MPs will vote on its second reading less than two weeks from today. This is not ideal, particularly when the issue is as consequential, ethically and practically, as medically administered death.[…] Before taking a neutral stance on a bill, the government should scrutinise it, including producing an impact assessment and a legal issues memorandum. These are supposed to be made available one month before the second reading, but as they don’t currently exist and the second reading is less than a month away anyway, that isn’t going to happen. — Ditum (2024)

Beyond this lack of proper scrutiny is the question of whether the state of care for those living with illness, whether terminal or not, gives people a meaningful choice to make. Certainly, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting doesn’t think it does, leading to his voting against the bill. Neither, apparently, does the Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) programme in Australia, if the pamphlet cited by The Other Half is anything to go by, featuring as it does this family quote: “The voluntary assisted dying process was really the first time that any medical and allied health practitioners had given such understanding and empathy to my sister's suffering, and that was such a relief.”

And, sure, you could read this as approbation of the VAD programme. Or you could read it as an indictment on the care system.

For his part, Santhouse says his experience is that when people are asking to die, “they are commonly communicating something different.”

They are asking for help to live. They are saying that they can't see how they can cope with the problems that they have, and are asking for help in finding a way through the seemingly impossible difficulties that lie ahead. To take their request at face value, and to whisk them over to the nearest assisted dying clinic, is to abrogate our responsibilities to the patient. — Santhouse (2024), p.210

If people are not making a free choice, if people are choosing death not because they want to die but because we have failed so abjectly to make living bearable for those who need care, what does that say about us as a society?

Similarly, as the Other Half notes in its examination of female suicidality in response to domestic violence, it “is impossible not to imagine a scenario that a woman in abusive situations would find it easier to access NHS assisted dying than support to create new life away from her abuser.” Certainly, assisting her death would be cheaper, a concern which was also raised by Santhouse, who fears that legalising assisted dying would make it “far easier to give up on people once the going gets tough.”

Advocates for assisted dying often rebut concerns about the morality or ethics of assisted dying by pointing to the strong public support that their position holds. And it’s true: my opinion is, as they say, unpopular: a poll conducted by Opinium earlier this year on behalf of pressure group Dignity in Dying found that 75% of the British public supports assisted dying.

But how many of the British public really understand the implications of how this works in practice? How many of them are thinking about the violence of the mercy killings we are asked to sympathise with, or the ease with which vulnerable people can be coerced into unwillingly ending their own lives? I ask, because when you poll British people who are more likely to have a good grasp of how assisted dying might work out in reality, the support drops rather precipitously.

A recent survey by the British Medical Association found that 50% of doctors were in favour of the legalisation of assisted dying, which is already a substantial drop from the position of the general public. The difference was even more pronounced when considering only palliative care doctors, that is, the doctors who are most likely to have direct experience of the realities for the patients involved (how good care can change their attitude to life; how vulnerable to coercion patients might be). Among these doctors, 76% were against a change in the law — almost the exact inverse of the opinion of the general public.

Where we go from here is unclear. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is now at the committee stage, where it will hopefully receive some of the scrutiny that has to date been sorely lacking —although given parliamentary timetabling restrictions this is by no means guaranteed. In the meantime, social and palliative care continues to be underfunded and under-resourced. And some men will continue to violently kill some women, and the state will continue to allow most of them to get away with it.

In a weird coincidence, shortly after I wrote this piece a friend of mine told me about the Christmas care package that had been sent by Age UK to her mother and aunt:

[Image description: A collection of gifts that includes slippers, a blanket, shortbread biscuits, a box of Celebrations chocolates, other unidentifiable edible or wearable treats.]

Age UK apparently sends these packages out to people on benefits with age-related health problems, and it’s such a brilliantly practical and caring idea I was inspired to set up a monthly donation to the charity.

Here’s why you should too: ageing is a feminist issue. Older women are poorer (thanks to the pay and pensions gap) and more frail and in poorer health (thanks to the health data and treatment gap) than older men. They are also more likely, thanks to sex differences in unpaid care (see Invisible Women for stats on this), to have spent their life taking care of other people. So, this Christmas, instead of “granny dumping,” let’s return the favour and make sure older women are taken care of themselves as they have taken care of all of us.

The link to donate again is here.

[rosie-dear-rosie]

I feel like we don’t talk nearly enough about Taissa and her axe motif.

Out of the three(?) yjs with weapon motifs Shauna and her knife, Nat and her gun, Tai and her axe. I think what makes the axe really unique is how nonviolent its use cases are compared to the others. Mainly, collecting lumber.

She’s not slaughtering or butchering but it’s equally important. Ultimately she keeps the team warm. She’s reliable, sturdy like the wood she cuts, in doomcoming they chat about how much they think Tai resembles the trees. She’s their heart. Their moral compass. Despite her seemingly cold and rational exterior she’s the one doing her best to keep everyone morally grounded.

[ballonleaparadise]

Liko as a Female Protagonist

I really respect the route that Horizons took with Liko as a protagonist. Her core strengths are her sensitivity and empathy. I feel like in modern media, being gentle or sensitive is often presented as a weakness. I think this is partially because it can be seen as a lack of integrity or courage. However, gentleness and vulnerability are also stereotypically feminine traits. For many 'strong female characters', there's a fear of highlighting 'feminine' traits like sensitivity, in case the character is perceived as a 'damsel in distress'.

Liko's gentle nature and attunement to the feelings of others are the qualities that make her such an amazing character. She is able to understand the emotions of people and pokemon in unique ways. She is also incredibly caring and worries for the wellbeing of others. There are too many examples of this to fit into one post, but the first that comes to mind is Hatenna's premier episode. Liko is the first person to sense that something is wrong with Hatena, and immediately takes it into her care. This leads to Hatenna bonding with the rvts and joining Liko's team.

Like all protagonists, Liko has her share of flaws. However, this does not take away from her core strengths. There are times when Liko's overthinking traps her, such as when she attempts to martyer herself to the Explorers in episode two. Despite this, she always overcomes setbacks and is self-aware enough to take advice from others. The earliest example of this is the same episode I just mentioned, where Sprigatito prompts Liko to not back down and face the Explorers head on.

So while Liko is not faultless, her kindness and empathy is what sets her apart from other characters in the show. As the series progresses, Liko develops the confidence to play to her strengths more: She raises a nervous Hatenna into a badass Hattrem, forms a deep bond with Dot, and shows the importance of compassion. Through her emotional intelligence and maturity, she has a sixth sense for the needs of people and pokemon. Recently in episode 75, Liko was able to fully gain Terapagos' trust despite its tragic past, showing how far she has come as a trainer.

Liko's sensitivity does not make her weak, nor does it make her a damsel in distress. Ultimately, she will sacrifice anything to help others, which is what makes her heroic. Of course, I'm not suggesting that all female characters should be like Liko. Variety is so important. However, she acts as a reminder that sensitivity or 'feminine' traits in general are just as important as 'masculine' traits like boldness or rationality. She is so much more than a 'strong female character' in my book.

[sharpth1ng]

Ive already posted this in my server, so you may see it twice, but In case you don't see it there im posting it here too.

Im assuming most of you have seen the news about the us election. Honestly im feeling nothing less than devastated, and i would assume Americans are feeling ten times worse. Im so fucking sorry to you all, and I know that doesn't help at all. I feel angry, hopeless, and sad as fuck, and i dont know how to comfort anyone or advocate for the hope i think we deserve.

What I can do is remind you all who you come from.

Women, queer people, disabled people, indigenous people, black people, new immigrants- anyone who experiences marginalization- we have been through this before. Many times. So many lives have been unjustly lost and our rights have been trampled on over and over, and we shouldnt have to be dealing with any of that still in 2024. It feels insane that im even having to write this post right now.

But even with that crushing history, repeating itself over and over, we haven't been silenced. If anything we've gotten louder. We've been having mainstream conversations about oppression and liberation in the past few years that were completely undiscussed when I was a kid. The vocal support for trans people alone, even with the rise of transphobia, is unprecedented.

None of this is meant to tell you that it's alright, or that it's not that bad, because it is that bad. But what I'm telling you is that its been this bad before, only this time we're louder than we ever have been before and we'll be louder still next time. There are more of us than there ever have been before, and if they couldn't take us all out when there were fewer of us they wont manage it this time.

There were drag shows happening in gay bars when it was still illegal to be gay at all. There were Natives preserving language and knowledge out of residential schools, and black people inventing whole new types of art and resistance while they were still being actively enslaved, and those are just a few examples. The point is that we dont stop, we never have. We will keep making art, finding love, and joy, being fucking loud and fighting for each other.

It's ok to hurt, to be angry and scared. Let yourself feel all of those things because its the only rational response to this.

But don't let it shut you down. Your history is one of resilience, survival, and compassion. We're so much more than the oppression we face and we always have been.

Reach out to the people you love and tell them you fucking love them. Make plans to see them. Gather with your community and organize to support each other, find ways to protect each other, and above all else don't stop looking for joy. Don't stop making art. Don't stop showing compassion.

Solidarity is the most important thing we have right now, so don't give up on it.

I don't know how to close this message really, but i want to repeat I'm not telling you to have hope, I'm not telling you it's not so bad. What I am telling you is that you're stronger than you think. You come from strength, you come from people who faced odd that seemed insurmountable so that you could be here today.

If they couldn't take us out before they wont succeed now. We're only going to get louder, angrier and stronger. And when the tide swings back in the other direction, like it always has in the past, they better be fucking grateful that most of us will be fighting for equality instead of revenge.

[furiousgoldfish]

When you're continually berated and punished for something, even something harmless or normal, it's going to feel like a 'wrong' thing to do, or to be. If your appearance is constantly insulted, it's going to feel like you 'look wrong', if your curiosity is being shut down and attacked, you'll start to perceive your own positive traits as bad, annoying and wrong.

Abusers especially love to punish any 'standing up to them', or 'questioning their intentions', and 'getting rightfully angry at them'. Or, god forbid 'attempt at creating boundaries'. Those will get shut down and punished very fast, and you will instead be 'corrected', and 'told how to think and how to act instead'. So you'll be told that the correct thing to do is to stay silent, not voice your thoughts, not talk back, repress and stuff down your anger and sense of justice indefinitely, don't believe you have any right to deny abusers anything they might want of you. And you always, always have to assume their intentions are what's best for you, for everybody, or at least, each and every of their actions has good reasons behind them.

I was trained to think like this as a child, and thought it was in fact, wrong to ever make a negative assumption about anyone's behaviour; this in fact will make them act bad! I thought the only correct way to behave was to defend and try to rationalize and understand any kind of disgusting behaviour. To the point where even when looking at the fictional characters, or people who had nothing to do with me, I would always attempt to see what had happened to those people and understand their motivationss for doing evil. I even mistakenly thought that this was some depth of character and a way to see nuance and good in everybody, I thought it was a positive trait of mine that I tried to understand everybody. It would later prove to be a vulnerability, since I  never extended the same grace to myself, and nor did anyone else.

Understanding why people do what they do makes sense if you're talking about friends, people who understand you back. It makes sense if you're trying to extend compassion for victims, trying to understand how they felt during what was done to them, and why they reacted in the way they did. It makes sense if you're trying to understand how the world works, and if you want to attempt to make changes. It even makes sense if you look at why abusers do what they do – but in that case, you can't look at their perspective for the answers. What they do is explained perfectly in what it accomplishes.

If constant berating, humiliating and shaming their victims accomplishes to ruin the victim's self esteem, being too scared to stand up to the abuser, struggling to socialize and ending up alone, isolated and more vulnerable to the abuse – then that's exactly what it accomplishes. If abuser's violence, threats, blackmail and manipulation hold the victim hostage, make the victim scared to run, scared to fight back, scared to disobey, scared to put the end to the abuse – thats what it accomplishes. If abusers control of victim's finances, appearance, social life, behaviour, activities and work gains the abuser the ability to control this person's life, and extract as much labour, catering, emotional care, and lack of a fight at violations and pain, that's exactly what it accomplishes!

A person's past doesn't come with instructions to hold someone hostage and hurt them indefinitely, no history will accidentally cause this. It cannot be explained by past experiences, because no past experiences get resolved by controlling another person to one's pleasure and benefit. Nobody is predisposed by their past to engage in intimate violation of another person's well being and integrity, hold it secret, and stop this person from defending themselves or running away. This is learned, calculated, purposeful, intentional and self-aware behaviour (or they wouldn't hide it, would they?).

Why they do what they do lies in what they get out of it. They wouldn't be doing it otherwise. You don't need their history to explain it, because the reasoning is very simple: they want to, they can, and they think they can get away with it. Difficult and painful past can cause a person to isolate themselves, to fear others, to struggle with emotions, trust, panic, triggers, to avoid situations where another thing like that could happen, to struggle with eating, to not be sure how to properly form bonds and connections, how to socialize, how to get close to people, or how to get separated when things get bad. But it doesn't cause a person to blatantly lie, fake, untruthfully promise and manipulate another to believe they're being loved, only to lure them into a hostage situation where they're not allowed to be a person anymore, not allowed to even voice what's happening to them. Nobody does this accidentally or because they 'don't know any better'. They do it with calculation because their intention is to exploit and harm for benefits. And that's not something to defend, in fact once you understand it, you know there is no possible defense in the world.

And to circle back to the beginning of this post, they shut down your curiosity because curiosity results in new knowledge, and any new information you get is a threat to them; curiosity is a powerful and desirable trait to have! Nothing was ever wrong with your appearance, they just prefer if you don't go outside and feel too ashamed of yourself to ever examine whatever is wrong with them; it's to keep you in shame and self doubt so you wouldn't notice how unworthy the abuser is of you. You standing up to others and fighting for what's right is not only a positive trait; it demands courage, integrity and personal strength to do that. And being suspicious when it comes to someone's intentions can save you mountains of trouble and abuse. You have every right to doubt what people are saying, every reason to notice if things are a little too convenient, little too unbelievable. It shows a clear mind and unclouded judgment - which, I can't judge you if you don't have, because I don't have it either.

People with good motivations don't need their actions defended, because the motivations are reflected in their acts, not their words. Anyone who needs you to defend them when they do evil, likely does not deserve it. Anyone who would have a problem with your appearance, curiosity, courage, strength, reasoning and distrust, could only have it because they don't like how you can see trough them, and fight them on their abuse. All of these traits should earn you respect and dignity.

[hwnglx]

bts on cam vs. off cam

based on tarot. i do not know these idols personally. energies are always changing. what i say is NOT straight fact. pls take it with a grain of salt!

jin

on cam

basically the moodmaker. he ties a lot of himself to that role; loves making people laugh. feels proud when a joke lands. very entertaining, charismatic, fun to watch. brings more energy into the group dynamic. has a strong and clear will, goal oriented, a lot of determination and drive. active. very chatty and witty, good comedic timing. he just lights up the room.

off cam

much more sensitive and emotionally intelligent than what meets the eye. deep and kind heart. also great at observing his surroundings, he's very intuitive and in tune with his environment. he has a quick mind. great deal of empathy and compassion for the people he holds dear. sweet nurturer. makes them feel comfortable. mentally active. seems to talk a lot behind the scenes too lol, but in a more tactful and sharp manner; great at communicating. can be both; emotional or logical, depending on what the situation asks for. adaptable.

suga

on cam

restrains himself more. much more careful and conscious over what he displays; a great case of show the best, hide the rest. i keep sensing his virgo moon here, he just wants to manage his image closely and make sure it remains clean. does allow himself to break out of that shell sometimes, and lets out his more playful and fiery side. very free-thinking, independent. just wants to do his own thing. much brighter and higher spirits on cam than off cam.

off cam

stubborn and self-focused. finance-oriented; stable and good at dealing with that part of his life. puts a lot of importance and value into material matters. can have some gluttonous tendencies, where he just gets insatiable; ariana grande's seven rings “i want it i got it.” vibe. increeedibly ambitious. if he sets his mind to something, it is going to happen. logical and rational. also extremely intelligent and smart. good luck trying to outsmart yoongi. doesn't bother to sugarcoat his words, very direct and honest in his expression. prefers and values the harsh truth, head over heart.

j-hope

on cam

masculine, passionate and strong, just has this quietly powerful and authoritative presence that demands attention. but at the same time gentle, balanced; a pleasant and agreeable aura. presents himself as this continuous student, someone who's very eager to expand his knowledge and skills in his career. consistent, stable, humble and self-aware. good at dealing with criticism. someone you just enjoy being around, he creates emotional connections with ease and makes everyone feel comfortable. big heart.

off cam

very focused on his group. like he loves these boys dearly. much more in tune with his feminine side; a soft, empathetic and nurturing soul. might be the hidden mother of the group lol. in tune with his emotions. doesn't shy away from expressing his feelings. so much more romantic and dreamy too. i feel like he cries a lot behind the scenes, especially about sappy and little sentimental things. very charming and idealistic. but also immensely hard-working. type to put in even more effort when no one's looking.

namjoon

on cam

confident and inspiring. so so much passion. brings a sense of warmth to his surroundings, and has an encouraging and uplifting effect on the people he's with. carries a lot of wisdom with him, so much good advice to give. knowledgable and mature for his age. like an old soul. very introspective, deeply reflects on his actions and his behavior. good at bonding with people and offering this sense of comfort, support and emotional understanding. loves in a profound way.

off cam

solid and stable. level-headed. a lot of focus on tangible achievements and practicality. “let's get this work done”. much more self-sacrificial than one would think. not as stubborn as it might appear, quite adaptable and open to opinions different to him. however, rub this man the wrong way somehow, he can get incredibly rigid pretty quickly. “cut the bullshit, deadass.” is what i heard, lmao. he doesn't like people who are too blinded by their emotions, and too delusional all the time; he can't deal with emotional immaturity. very fact-based and rational in that sense.

taehyung

on cam

a lot of contentment and abundance in the way he presents himself. like he just gives off this expensive aura, and seems pretty satisfied with himself. kinda snug and prideful. knows what he is and what he can do for people, and radiates that self-assurance and confidence to the outside. i can tell it just makes him very attractive to people. mature, in control of his emotions. calm and collected. he just looks like he knows what he's doing all the time. very complex too, someone who just adds depth and flavour to everything he does.

off cam

talks and speaks up much more. very clever and quick-witted. mentally agile and savvy. observant and detail-oriented. isn't afraid to stand his ground and voice his opinion when he needs to. he makes things look very easy and effortless, but in reality, he puts a lot of effort and hard work into all of his endeavours. responsible. can get burdened and overwhelmed more than you think. impatient tendencies. can get scared of change, but also doesn't wanna stay stuck; can have problems balancing out these two clashing sides in him. i always feel how being a capricorn stellium with an impulsive and rash aries moon must be quite exhausting sometimes.

jimin

on cam

balanced and gentle aura. sweet and diplomatic. someone who encourages a peaceful and harmonious environment. very much a libra. he has huge duality, where he can go from this happy go-lucky and bright smiled sunshine, to a dark and sensual devil (card that come out) that just gazes holes into your soul. i think he bases a lot of his image on his performances, i keep seeing him on stage in my minds eye. loves letting out and transitioning into his scorpionic (his venus+mars placement), sexy and mysterious energy whenever he's on stage. almost like he plays a role and fools people. loves to stand out among the crowd. can get very competitive and greedy too, in terms of his performances. (the energy was crazy intense here?)

off cam

much more laidback. outgoing and sociable, enjoys meeting up and going to parties. good at making friends and networking. more comfortable and slow-moving. more pragmatic than one would think as well. not nearly as soft and sensitive. can be more confident and self-assured than what meets the eye. but can get emotional out of nowhere though, kinda unpredictable with his feelings. his energy is just very fickle, but at the same time intense. he's either completely loyal to you, sticks by you through everything, or doesn't give two cents about you, honestly lmaooo :')

jungkook

on cam

humble, an eternal student. always trying to improve, expand his horizon. more youthful and bright in spirit. extremely driven and determined; if jk sets his mind to something, no one can hold him back from getting it. very much obsessive in that way. holds a lot of love in his heart, is gentle and careful in the way he treats people. there's some femininity here too. he might have this more sensual image in people's eyes. people enjoy his company because it's very calm and chill, drama free. mostly quiet and reserved. doesn't insert himself into any conflict intentionally and stays out of it.

off cam

surprise surprise - hugely perfectionistic. even obsesses over managing his image behind the scenes. very eager to keep it as flawless as possible. i heard “a dream to work with” though. someone who loves to collaborate, enjoys learning from other people. very committed and dedicated to quality at his work. always focused on doing the right thing; well-established manners and strong morals. likes connecting to people on an emotional level; moreso needs it. more sensitive than one would expect. can also get immensely greedy sometimes; this is where i see his dilemma. he's always yearning to reach the highest level work-wise; but can easily feel dissatisfied and unfulfilled. he doesn't enjoy fame, but at the same time can't do without it. i heard “the only thing i'm good at” jk is the type to think he's not good at something if he isn't at level 10 right away. he's always looking to do more and more; very prone to burning himself out badly because of his extreme ambition.

note; mister jeon always has so much to say, phew.

[shock]

it's very difficult to explain the empathy that comes with making decisions our animals can't make for themselves and unless you've been in that position before, having to weigh the suffering against the quality of life, I can understand why people think everything can be saved but like

being so serious here once you've had to put an animal out of its misery with your own hands life looks different - not inherently worse or bad just different - and there is at the same time a profound sadness and a profound relief that you as the person who cares the most about the safety and life and happiness of an animal is the one who GETS TO have this animal in your life is the one who HAS TO be part of that decision

My relationship with the death of my pets and livestock is that death is inevitable but it's my obligation to be familiar with what I believe based on evidence, research, experience, compassion and individual understanding combined what is a permanent life-lasting experience or a way of dying that I will prevent a living thing from having to experience. I know what situations I would put my animals down in, and I've had to, and that initial grief and guilt and 'what if' has over time led to calm conviction and peace of mind that it's natural for a species that evolved to socially empathize with every living thing around them and be able to collaborate with nature to try to find ways to make the last experience of life be as dignifying and respectful as possible. that's not a curse, and there is no pleasure in doing it, but there is pleasure in knowing that you have the capacity to logically, emotionally, rationally weigh every single possibility and go through everything we know could save a living creature either from whatever is hurting it by successfully intervening in a way that sustains long-term quality of life or, in the case of the last resort, from the experience of a constant state of misery... idk. Whenever I see people keeping animals alive who are rotting from the inside and at baseline permanently suffering I just have to question whether that person is motivated by love for the living creature they are responsible for from the moment they sign on for the experience, including death and decisions regarding the remains, or a fear of what it will feel like to THEM in the immediate aftermath of another creature's death

[caq1e]

i've been trying to rationalize why clay terran's death hits me more than pretty much any other victim, even though the exact intricacies of his character are not the most plot relevant, and i think i finally got it. some of it's that he's the series' first new science freak in a while, yeah, but i think above that it's the emphasis on his ambition.

ace attorney does not like to kill real characters. it doesn't. referring to the main series for the rest of this post, we very rarely get to see a character for one section of one case before they die, with a few notable exceptions. as a result, because we don't get to know the characters very well, we as players are left to pick up the remnants based on the reactions of those still alive. ace attorney creates tragedy and emotional impact through the emotions of those who knew the victims. the victims' personas, therefore, are shaped by others' experiences with them: were they nice or mean, compassionate or abusive, nurturing or strict? while their relationships to others are crucial to their selves, they aren't everything about them.

clay is an astronaut. and unlike pretty much every victim in this series, that's not just his job, it's his life's purpose. the majority of clay's character is shaped through apollo's perception of him, sure, but what's also emphasized is his dream of being an astronaut. he wanted to be an astronaut since he was a child. he went to cosmos, became acquaintances and friends with the employees, surrounded himself with space. and he got the job. i know ace attorney ages can be taken with a grain of salt, but he was going to go into space at twenty-three, where the youngest astronaut in real life was twenty-five. any sizable gap in age below the norm tends to get lawyers deemed prodigies, excluding most themis students, so clay could probably be considered one as well. he was brilliant and remarkably hardworking and dedicated his entire life to reaching this goal, and he... didn't. he died with his dream ten steps in front of him.

when a character is an exception in one way, they tend to be in many, and they also tend to be defense attorneys, for some reason. the two victims with the most ambition at time of death, from my perspective, also have the most pre-death screen time: mia fey and dhurke sahdmadhi. their ambition may be on different scales, but they both died with tasks unfinished. mia had yet to reveal the corruption of redd white and the truth to dl-6, and dhurke had yet to restore stability to his country's legal system. they were both incredibly committed to fulfilling these goals and died while actively pursuing them.

the contrast between these two and clay is the individualism factor. dhurke wanted to see his revolution through, but he wanted a better future regardless of whether he was its leader or not. mia's connection was due to her familial involvement, but she also just wanted to uncover the truth behind redd white's obscurations and reduce corruption in the legal system. these goals are personal, but they aren't limited to them. they are goals that these two aspire to achieve, but they themselves don't need to be the ones to achieve them; in fact, they aren't. phoenix apprehends white, exposes manfred von karma, and discovers misty fey's disappearance for mia, while nahyuta and apollo work to reform khura'in's courts for dhurke. clay wanted to go to space. while a less noble goal than those i'm comparing him to, it's also more intrinsic to himself. he was supposed to be the one in space. there's no one to take over his dream because it's his alone. when he dies, that's it. it'll never be done. while his compassion definitely implies that he would be proud as long as sol starbuck touched the stars again, that isn't his dream. it's not the same as him doing it himself.

another similarity between mia and dhurke is that they are also the victims with the most post-death screen time. mia is channeled constantly through the first trilogy, to the point where she's almost as constant as any living character. dhurke lives for days, concealing his death while being channeled and not revealing the secret until almost the end of 6-5. as a result, these two get front row seats to their goals being fulfilled by their successors. mia's there to help phoenix take down white in 1-2, is certainly made aware of the results in 1-4, and even reunites with diego and re-defeats dahlia in 3-5. dhurke assists apollo leading up to the final court case, and his presence sticks with apollo as he develops his defense office.

clay does not get post-death screen time. he's only mentioned, like any other victim, after his death, and the large bulk of it is regarding the minutes before he's killed. not only is his dream unable to be fulfilled, but he wouldn't get the chance to see anything come of it, if that was even possible. he's not aura, staring out of a prison cell as part of her life's work flies off without her input. he's dead. no seeing the future, no willing on a successor to continue for him, no closure. dead and gone.

i'm not going to go crazy in depth right now, but, considering all major victims, the final truth of clay's death is done pretty poorly. as the successor to investigations, a duology that deals with international affairs in incredible detail, dual destinies is notably lacking. the organization behind the phantom isn't explored in the slightest; what was the point in making them a part of something bigger in the first place? there's no inciting event, no motive, not even a name, and from my point of view it just makes dual destinies feel unfinished, like there were plans that couldn't be made reality. there aren't any hints towards what the organization is doing, no legs to theorize on besides real life events, and it's not portrayed in a way that leaves it as a clever mystery. some international organization wants to sabotage the rocket launches for an unknown reason, so people die. that's all. clay dies due to reasons completely unknown to players, which is just so unsatisfying. not only does he not get closure, but we don't either. it makes me desperate for any new information to justify his death, to make his murder mean something, just like others who are integral to plot. this isn't entirely the point i was trying to make, but i think it's significant enough to mention. or maybe i just wanted to talk about it. not too sure.

clay terran suffers the awful fate of too much ambition and too little closure. this alone made his death have the greatest lasting impact on me. i'm not sure how it is for others, but the sadness of those left behind didn't usually trigger a large emotional reaction in me. however, the way clay's extraordinary dedication, implied intelligence, and nigh inevitable success were ripped from him right at the very end, with no possibility of a successor due to his own personal stake in the goal, made his death hit me through the heart like no other ace attorney victim. and also, just a little bit, because he's a new science freak.

[scoobydoodean]

Made a similar post before but... I think people in their minds actually revise 2.03 Bloodlust to be this episode where Sam is on this "Monsters can be good" train before he ever gets kidnapped by Lenore and he then is burdened with the task of convincing poor stupid idiot Dean who isn't as open-minded and rational as he is to think for just one second and then at the end of the episode, pats him on the head and tells him not to feel guilty about it when he finally becomes enlightened like Sam has always been but that is not how that episode goes.

Sam's immediate reaction to the alleged existence of good vampires is not any different from Dean's. He immediately rejects the idea that the vampires aren't hurting anyone, and throughout his entire conversation with Lenore, refuses to believe her until she goes, "Fine. I'll let you go to prove it to you" which rocks his whole ass world.

Face of man having his whole worldview toppled sideways and having to figure out how to adapt:

So yeah after this Sam and Dean get into a 2 minute fight about it which turns into a completely different conversation because Sam decides for the third time in three episodes to try and pretend he's Dean's therapist then (badly) psychoanalyze him about how Gordon is a substitute for their dad and it (shocker) doesn't go well. But then Gordon steals the car and the moment Sam and Dean walk into the room where Gordon is torturing Lenore, Dean's feelings about the entire thing happening in front of him are "This is bad. This is very bad."

The SECOND he enters the room Dean picks a side, and it isn't Gordon's.

Just like Lenore "proved" her goodness to Sam by letting him go, she "proves" her goodness to Dean by resisting the temptation to consume Sam's blood... but Dean started defending Lenore and trying to get Gordon to back off the moment he entered the room.

Dean is also much more thoughtful about where this leaves him and Sam in terms of their past hunts while Sam doesn't consider the past at all?

Istg people rewrite this scene in their minds to be Sam approaching the whole thing from the perspective of someone who was already "enlightened"... but he wasn't. He was equally shocked by the revelation of good vampires possibly existing in this episode. He just doesn't bother to also consider the implications as far as any previous case they've ever been on. He doesn't feel any guilt about it he just lets it go with a shrug and Dean doesn't.

Add to this that in 1.12, Sam was the one with the hardline stance that they couldn't kill humans—ones who would get away with their crimes because they committed them by supernatural means—and that doing so would make them "just as bad" as the things they hunt. The only difference between a human using a reaper to murder people for clout, and a monster murdering people, is the physical characteristics of the monster versus the human. Dean sees a human using a reaper to murder people for clout and says, "they're a monster in my book". He argues they should take care of it because of the human's actions—otherwise there will be no repercussions for the human involved, while Sam draws a hard line that they can't kill a human simply because they're human and for no other reason. This is also crunchy in terms of how it might relate to Sam's eventual feelings about his inner nature making him evil, versus Dean's actions-based analysis.

Sam has a lot of compassion for Max in 1.14, but it's gone by 2.05 when his reaction to Andy is to immediately assume he's a murderer while Dean rightfully thinks there's something else possibly going on... and that's two episodes after 2.03 Bloodlust.

[sea-salted-wolverine]

I regularly catch accusations of "mom friend" for a handful of reasons and honestly, it's a case of doing the math wrong and getting the right answer.

if you are scared i will reassure you. if you are uncomfortable i have snacks, i have advil, i have a spare sweater. i will comfort you when you are sad, i can be an effective bitch and chew out people on your behalf. I can deliver a shovel talk that will make even a dedicated fuckboy call me ma'am. if you find yourself lacking confidence i can bring out a rousing pep talk on just what a wonderful person you are and how you are logically and rationally completely capable. i can mediate arguments with a cool compassion.

this is pretty much the definition of mom friend, but I got there by being a wildly overconfident low-empathy person who is constantly prepped for fuckin armageddon and doesn't fear death. i can manhandle you into the minivan or i can bribe you with a juice box, but we are getting this show on the road

[stardustdiiving]

I notice Nahida is portrayed as frustrated or scolding of other characters (usually Wanderer) in fanon often but to be honest I don’t think Nahida really has that much of a temper where she defaults to that sort of thing very much….She can be angry and firm as needed but I really don’t think that’s her first instinct on how to assert herself in a lot of cases.

She instead really strikes me as someone who primarily gets upset when it’s on behalf of other people or someone embodying ideas she finds very devoid of care and compassion for others….but struggles to really be angry on her own behalf. Like, it’s pointed out it’s only until she’s actively being rescued that she finally says she’s angry at the Sages, and while she is openly angry then we see later everyone comments on how they seem to have gotten off days, which I touched on in this post and feel u can infer from that this idea Nahida struggles to be harsh even towards to the people who kept her in a cage for 500 years—which makes when u see how much she rationalizes being treated like this earlier on. She ultimately seems more concerned with the Sages mistreatment of her people vs their mistreatment of Nahida herself.

This feels consistent to why she seems pretty visibly disgusted with Dottore when they have their negotiation. Dottore is more or less an antithesis to everything she believes about wisdom and embodies a lot of malice and cruelty that Nahida would be really disturbed by. I personally like to write her lack of a temper in some areas as something that seems almost troubling — bc on one hand she’s very forgiving and kind despite through being a lot, but on the other this seems like it might be rooted in just genuinely not allowing herself to be angry to protect herself. But yeah overall I think unless you’re really causing an issue Nahida is more likely to give you a kind of frazzled sad puppy look and very politely ask you to be better as opposed to hitting you with a sandal or scolding you for it

In the case of her relationship with Wanderer specifically I’ve like, talked about how I feel people overlook the fact Wanderer makes a genuine effort to cooperate with Nahida and doesn’t really fight with her much…so i don’t think they’re often bickering with each other to the point Nahida has to get really firm with him. She seems to have a pretty interesting amount of patience with him especially post AQ, which again I think is helped by the fact Wanderer is genuinely trying to cooperate and she sees that. We do see her ask Traveler + Scaramouche to stop bickering in Inversion of Genesis but she is in my opinion very polite and at most a bit awkward about it, not scolding or irritated

[nighttimeebony]

Reasons why I think L has autism (updated now that I've been diagnosed with autism):

He does not emote very often. L's facial expressions and tone of voice are very flat and almost never change with the situation no matter what happens.

He does not know what is considered appropriate for social interaction.

The fact that he doesn't wear shoes implies that he has sensory issues with physical stimuli. In the same way that autistic people are bothered by tags on clothes or certain textures of fabric, some autistic people don't like wearing shoes because they like to be able to feel the ground or because they don't like how tight or restrictive shoes feel. (I also hate wearing shoes for this exact reason, and I will go barefoot whenever physically possible. If given the opportunity, I would literally never wear shoes)

Autistic people can also struggle with physical care and maintaining proper hygiene, which we can see in L by the fact that he wears the same shirt and pants every day, and by how messy and unkempt his hair is

It's fair to say that detective work and psychology is L's special interest. He's driven more by how the work stimulates him mentally rather than because of a particularly strong moral compass.

It's safe to conclude that L also has low empathy. It's not that he doesn't care about people, because he does, but he doesn't seem to understand it when people get upset with him for making certain decisions for the sake of solving the case. He is very much a "logic first" kind of person, and for the most part, he makes decisions based on what makes the most practical, rational sense to him, even if it seems morally dubious.

Literally the only thing we ever see him eat is candy and sweets. Autistic people are often picky eaters and have difficulty eating certain kinds of food because of either the texture or sensory processing issues, so a lot of autistic people tend to eat primarily sweets and junk food because of this. (My bf and one of my close friends, both autistic, are also like this. My bf doesn't like most vegetables bc of the texture, and the only thing I've ever seen my friend eat is Uncrustable PB&Js and chocolate; chocolate is like a whole thing for her.)

He has a tendency to touch his mouth, but he also rubs his feet together while he's sitting. These are both examples of stimming. (I also have a habit of touching my mouth and picking at my lips)

The bags under his eyes indicate that he has difficulty sleeping

He interprets certain instances of conversation literally, like the infamous "Yes, that would be dark" line

Incredibly blunt and doesn't waste time with small talk, even coming across as rude a lot of the time

L's level of eye contact is abnormal. A lot of autistic people don't make eye contact because it makes them uncomfortable, but some autistic people will go in the opposite direction and overcompensate by staring, which is exactly what L does: staring directly at people without blinking for inappropriate amounts of time (Wednesday Addams does this too)

The way he sits

The way he holds objects with the very tips of his fingers

In the deleted theater scene when Light and L meet for the first time, L wipes his hands off after shaking Light's hand

He frequently invades other people's personal space (again, see the deleted theater scene)

[the-badger-mole]

Azula stans really need to stop projecting the tough childhoods they had unto her. She is not some helpless little girl who never did anything bad on her own accord. Her fangirls are nothing but toxic terfs who think any criticism for them are sins from the patriarchy, please.

Idk enough Azula apologists to say they are all terfs or not, but I think the larger issue is people aren't comfortable rooting for the bad guy anymore. I, personally blame Wicked. I love the show, and I really liked the book, but it kickstarted this trend of What If stories that make villains more sympathetic. In a lot of cases, they just outright flip who was the villain and who was the hero, which is the least interesting thing you could do in terms of exploring a villain character's motives (glaring daggers at you, Maleficent).

No one is all black or all white. Everyone exists in shades of grey, and that includes villains. There's nothing wrong with exploring the grey areas of villains. Some of the best villains in literature are multi-dimensional. Some of them are even sympathetic, but at the end of the day, they are villains and nothing justifies their destruction. The best recent example I can think of is Killmonger from the Black Panther movie. He wasn't wrong to criticize the exploitation of Africa and the Black Diaspora by the West. He wasn't wrong for thinking that Wakanda should've stepped up and intervened. His anger was absolutely justified, but his methods absolutely were not. As an audience we can both love and empathize with Killmonger but also admit he was the villain.

That is, unfortunately, not how a lot of Azula's staunchest defenders approach her. Instead of allowing themselves to feel empathy for her, even though she is definitely in the wrong and has definitely made decisions on her own accord that show her own moral compass is broken, they have to turn her into a victim of circumstance. I think that is actually a very sexist way to look at Azula, though I don't really think for the most part her defenders are trying to be. Azula made choices she didn't have to. She was a child who was likely abused (albeit in a different way from Zuko). She was also an abuser herself, and very ruthless and cunning in her own right. All those things can be true at the same time, but Azula defenders can't seem to accept that.

Now I could speculate on why this is, and personally, I think it's because of this really annoying trend of needing your fandom opinions to align with your morals. I don't have much to base that on, though. I don't spend a ton of time engaging with a lot of people on the opposite end of the fandom from me, so I haven't heard directly from the more rational Azula defenders on why they think the way they do (the ones I've interacted with have been just...the worst and I didn't care to engage with them for long). Even if I did, who is self aware enough to say "my need to defend this villain is because I don't feel comfortable liking them if they are truly bad"? My opinion is based entirely on the posts that I see on my feed sometimes of mutuals getting asks that accuse them of terrible things because of the characters and tropes they like. Also, on the metas I sometimes see explaining how rather than being the villain, Azula was a broken little thing who had been failed by everyone around her, including her brother- who was a child himself, and her uncle- who couldn't have intervened even if he wanted because Azula wouldn't have ever accepted his help.

I could be right, or I could be way off base, but I think if we're ever going to see a decline in the rabid defenders of characters like Azula, we have to get to a point where we can admit we like bad guys without trying to make them heroes. It's okay to like a character and still want to see them defeated in the end. Or to want to see them win, even if it means that evil has triumphed. It doesn't mean anything about you as a person. It just means that you like a good story.