#anyway I passionately hate fucking logical fallacies and I will call them out whenever I see them

[eyrieofsynapses]

To get into nerd territory for a second: most "trolley problems" are a breed of logical fallacy called a false dilemma. Logical fallacies are basically flaws in reasoning, and you'll see them used A LOT in political campaigns. They're good at getting your attention and making you feel a certain way, while completely distracting you from the actual point. False dilemmas are pretty common: it's black-and-white thinking, "us against them," "only one of us can be right" etc. So in some cases, yeah, politicians (or corporations) will use false dilemmas guised as "trolley problems" to get our attention and make us think irrationally.

Except OP is right. Not every trolley problem is a false dilemma. So while it makes sense that our knee-jerk reaction is to say "well, that's impossible, that's a false dilemma!", since we're so used to people using that argument to mess with our heads, the trolley problem is still useful. It's still true to life. Yes, we can't let ourselves be tricked into thinking everything is black and white. But no, you can't always choose your favorite shade of gray, either.

The point of the trolley problem isn't to say "what's the best option?" It's to say, "what's the better of two awful options?" And sadly, right now, our world is full of awful options with very few truly good options. (No ethical consumption under capitalism, right?)

Okay let me try this one again. The Trolley Problem sets up a scenario that sucks to be in. You either kill one guy, or you kill five guys. Nobody likes these options. We all don't want this be happening. That's kind of the point. It's a moral quandary. It's supposed to feel bad.

Now, according to a recent post floating around on tumblr, choosing either of the two options demonstrates "learned helplessness" and makes you a neolib sheep. The only correct answer, the post states, is to reject the question altogether. (Or to change the parameters of the question to include an option that saves everyone, thus eliminating the moral quandary.)

It sounds nice, doesn't it? Fuck this bad situation, we control our imaginations, so let's imagine a situation that doesn't suck. Hah! Bet you didn't think of that!

Here's the problem. Even though I think most situations generally have at least one solution that is both Feasible and Not Terrible, I have to admit that there are some situations (as in, not zero of them) where all the feasible options are unpleasant. This is a natural consequence of living in a world where A Lot Of Things Suck.

But if shitty situations do exist, even if it's super super rare, then it's not unreasonable to ask, "How should we make decisions when we find ourselves in a shitty situation?"

This is the beginning premise of the Trolley Problem. It says, "Hey what if you were in an unambiguously shitty situation? There are many shitty situations, so let's imagine one that is contrived enough to get everyone on the same page regardless of political affiliation, AND really emphasizes the key parts that I want to discuss."

Tumblr says "let me stop you right there. What if instead...we imagined a different scenario that wasn't as shitty?"

Well, okay, but then we're not talking about the same thing anymore. That doesn't actually count as an answer to the problem, you're just changing the subject to a completely different thing.

Tumblr goes on to say, "Exactly. That's the only thing you should ever do when confronted with an ethical quandary. Frankly the fact that you are willing to even consider a scenario that sucks suggests that you are fundamentally incapable of considering less shitty scenarios."

I just want to say I think that's bullshit. I don't think every problem is a trolley problem, but I do think that some problems are a trolley problem. And I think that those problems are worth discussing, even though they don't feel good. The trolley problem exists as a framework to discuss those problems.

Maybe our aversion to difficult decisions has an impact on our ethical reasoning, and maybe we should actually question how our ethical standards hold up under the weight of that aversion. So maybe moral quandaries like the trolley problem are worth discussing. And if you don't want to engage with the quandary, then don't - you don't have to concoct a whole essay about how the quandary is inherently morally bad.

It's possible that what you really want to say is that it sucks when people treat certain situations as trolley problems, when those specific situations actually do contain unambiguously feasible and unambiguously perfect solutions. I would agree with that.

But like. Let's not pretend that you can reduce all of ethics down to unchallenging black and white moralism.

[rpedia]

[Ask RPedia] Characterization of Emotional Manipulators

numbertwooflorien asked: Advice to rp as a emotional manipulative character?

Well okay! This post is how to RP an emotionally manipulative character, and in general a manipulative character. Useful for villains, and grimdark settings, it may include some crap people don’t want to think about. In detail. Major detail. So fair warning, I’m gonna get into psychological shit, and describe what amounts to abuse tactics with lots of explanation so if this isn’t your cup of tea, keep running. You might be able to use this as a way to spot toxic relationships as much as you can use it to play fictional ones, and I hope it helps people one way or another. But remember, keep it fucking fictional! 

This is presented as a way to understand those mindsets as a writer, which is important, and not in any way shape or form something you should do in real life. I acknowledge if you wanna do shit like this you’ll find the details on how to be an asshole somewhere anyways though, so I’m not gonna let you ruin it for everyone who just needs some writing help to make their character’s manipulation/emotional crisis more realistic. Onto the cut.

Hi! So first off, fair warning. I may get a little testy, or sound like I’m talking about shit happening from a first-hand receiving view without meaning to. Spoiler: I am. I’ll try to couch this in writer-talk more, sorry if I sound salty, or slip and don’t notice.

So! You’re a writer. You’re writing a character who is designed to produce conflict, and emotions within the reader by emotionally manipulating others. First things first, look at yourself, and your character’s goals. You need to have relatively firm goals in mind when you're figuring out what to do with a character’s motivations and personality. 

What reaction do you want from the reader or your opposite in a roleplay? Do you want your partner/reader to feel sorry for them being caught up in their own web of lies, or do you want them to hate them and rebel against them? Do you want them to feel sickened, relate to the character, or feel pity for them?  What goals does your character have in mind? Does it just feel good, or are they looking for attention? Do they feel the need to control things?

First let’s look at the motivations of the character. Usually the urge to manipulate others stems from some sort of issue in their past. This is gonna simplify things a lot, but that’s because we’re making shit up and not dealing with real people. Real people are hella complex, they have way more detail to their “backstory” because they’re real, complex, thinking individuals who may have issues we can’t even know because they’re repressed. This is a character, under our control. So we can define what happened to them, and how it effected them, to a minute degree. 

Control is a big player in this ‘game’, needing control can push the character to do things they might not have otherwise. A loss of control in their childhood that significantly impacted them could cause this need/goal. Having someone take their favorite toy and destroy it in front of them? Yeah, I don’t know about you, but if someone did that, I wouldn’t fuckin’ want nobody to do anything I didn’t plan for ever again. The character might then start focusing on ways to stop that from happening.

They might just like the feel of control, rather than fear a lack of it. It feels good to see the puppets dance, so to speak, so when they force others to do as they command by playing their emotions it feels like victory. Victory is delicious, and most people whet that appetite on nice things like cooking a nice dinner, or drawing, or running in races. Characters who are emotionally manipulative instead get their kicks from hurting others in such a way that they get what they want, which may include just getting attention.

The basic issue here is, regardless of other issues for them, they make choices that hurt other people. Logically, they know what they are doing even if they block it out or try to ignore it. They may come up with a complex, distorted, long winded reason why they are in fact the victim, or that their behavior is somehow righteous. They are deliberately going out of their way to look for weaknesses in others, and exploit them for personal gain. This is just the sign of an asshole. Be aware you are playing or writing an asshole.

So, have their history in mind? Have you built up their reasoning for thinking that they are in the right at all times? Have you picked their goals or personality? If so, the next step is actual manipulation. Now we’re gonna jump right into how and why people react to things, and the logical fallacies that get preyed on by the less scrupulous.

We see it in advertising all the time. That commercial with the sad kennel puppies? The time your parent told you to eat your veggies because somewhere out there another kid is starving and would be so lucky? This is called Appeal to Emotion, and is in formal logic classes, considered a fallacy used in arguments to support your point despite it not having actual back-up.  When you use these, you can appeal to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. Coherent arguments of course can have an aspect of emotional connection, it’s what makes us passionate. The fallacy comes about when the emotions are the only argument. Since we’re affected by emotions, this fallacy works wonders... even if they’re dishonest and flawed.

So say, the other character went out for lunch. They didn’t invite your character. So, in order to get attention to make up for this, and control such behaviors, the manipulative asshole character would probably confront them about it. Depending on how deep they are with the other character, they’re be subtle. Pouting a little, and sighing. Maybe mentioning they’re hungry, and looking hurt when the other character mentions lunch. Sure, they could get their ass up and get food themselves, but that’s not the point. The point is, their victim did something, and they want them to feel bad about it. 

Subtle is how they draw you in. There could be, if you squinted, some feelings hurt by not being asked to join in. Perhaps they want to hang out with you, or they miss you, or they’re just playing around and teasing that they’re sad. The part that makes it manipulative is when they draw out the sadness until you feel guilty, and then  laugh it off and wave you away. Step one is done, now you think they’re joking, and still feel kind of bad. Hooks have been set.

So your character can start kicking it up a notch over time. Your character might do something else by themselves like a healthy normal adult, and that character will complain. “Why wasn’t I invited?” At first they’ll continue to play it as a joke, so the other character will do it repeatedly. This becomes multiple strikes they can complain about over time, because they never actually explained themselves as upset. Now the manipulator can get pissed at the victim character: you didn’t realize I was actually upset?! Wow, you don’t even care about me at all! I can’t believe you’re so unobservant. Do you just not remember?

Here kids, we get into gaslighting. Events are now happening in a parallel which is sorta similar, but not quite. Sure they were upset, but they played it off. Without communicating, they’ve worked themselves into a victim position. They are being ignored, unwanted, and apparently the character don’t even care about their feelings enough to read them properly when you two have a talk! This is a lie. They were hiding their emotions, they regularly downplayed it until they could use it against the other character, and going out to lunch or a movie alone is not an attack on them just by existing. In fact they’re suggesting joking petulance is now a “talk.”

Now that the victim character feels guilty and unsure of themselves, they do what a normal person would do to a real issue. They try to work it out, to figure out a way to make them feel better. They offer to take them with them. They invite them out, a few times, and try to make amends. Sure it feels a little weird, but they’re a friend. It’s easy to just do something nice! Heck, they might even accept, and the two characters might have a lovely time. This instills a ‘if you’re good, I’ll be good too’ mentality in the victim. There is now a set up where you get reinforced to follow what they want because it causes less problems.

These issues may pop up everywhere. A victim may be told they chew too loud, or they shouldn’t watch a TV show without the manipulator. Maybe they’ll be upset by the toilet seat, or some real things just to make sure it’s realistic. They’ll draw it out, be ‘uncomfortable’ explaining why this makes them upset. Everything is a hardship. The difference between real issues and manipulation here is somehow the only bad things are things the victim likes, or wants to keep safe or to themselves. Things they can take to make the victim less happy. To the manipulator it may look like they’re expressing how much they care by getting rid of their favorite or special things that they can get no where else. The manipulator also makes it hard on themselves to explain, despite things not being that bad, so that they can add another level on if the victim complains: now they’re a burden to them because of all their baggage. Even non-manipulators have hard to explain things, the manipulator however will do this whenever they’re rejected out of hand, very quickly because it produces results. Victims take the time to build up to explaining why something’s important because it’s really hard to do so, manipulators can jump in when convenient.

A kind normal person feels getting rid of someone because of baggage would be a terrible thing, after all they have baggage too! They have special things they like to have just so. The character continues to try and make things easier, because clearly even if the manipulator hasn’t had a particularly harder life, they have had it hit harder to make them so delicate. They deserve happiness, and to feel cared for. The gaslighting continues, the manipulative character begins to point out every time they make a mistake or forget something, and starts laughing about how forgetful the victim character is. They explain situations just a little south of how they actually happened, keying themselves as the victim. Any argument gets heated, but then suddenly they drop all heat and start ‘worrying’ about their own mental state. Maybe they’re wrong, and they’re so so sorry. But can you still not do that, if it ever comes up? This is a fake concession to lure you in by making this the easier path. 

So slowly the victim character becomes used to these demands, even as they grow wider and wider in the net they cast. A manipulator needs their full attention, and to cockblock anyone raising doubts about the issues. So they start fights and burning bridges with the victim’s friends. They might even lie directly to them about being the real victim, far ahead of the actual victim noticing. Getting rid of all of their contacts makes it easier to manipulate them because then they can’t find an outside opinion. Only tainted, controlled ones. The hooks set in a little deeper.

So your victim is alone in the world, or only has a few friends. They begin questioning what is wrong with themselves, and struggle to become a better person. There’s honeymoon periods, there the abusive character is happy, and genuinely makes the victim feel good about themselves... until they get bored and need another mistake. 

Now that they have you alone, so it’s easier to just get mad and ‘need to cool down’. So they abandon the victim character for long spaces of time. This forces them to question themselves, and try desperately to find solutions without any means to use them. This also makes them the bad guy if they try to communicate. Suddenly these brand new created boundaries are being broken. Ostracizing people causes genuine pain, which means that it’s easier to control them because pain is a great way to teach someone they’re “bad”.

From a victim’s perspective this is all normal and reasonable because it’s slowly gained in momentum over time. They feel good, sometimes, and it’s really good. They just keep making mistakes (spoiler: they don’t, the mistakes are manufactured.) and if they were “better” this wouldn’t be happening to them. They get into the headspace of needing to not only obey, but become a god damn psychic to understand what the manipulative character wants next. 

How does this manipulative motherfucker keep things interesting if they’ve already broken someone to their whims though? By adding in things that are seemingly contradictory, but depend on ‘mood’. Mood whiplash is common in manipulators, and they will go from having a great day to having a terrible one based on ‘outside’ forces. The victim character cannot foresee these, nor stop them, so they might get to have a wonderful morning! And then some asshole says something rude, and the manipulator says they’re having a TERRIBLE day now, this triggered a headache, and they’re so miserable. The illnesses will always be invisible, it’s easier to get one at the drop of the hat that way even if it invalidates real versions of the illnesses. Watch for faked symptoms that magically disappear when they want to do something they like, like listen to loud pounding music in headphones during a “headache” while refusing treatment. The victim may try to help, but no. The manipulator now says the victim is making it worse by being clingy and needy. That, or they’re going to blow their cover. 

So the victim learns to stay in their box unless the manipulator wants to take them out and play with them. They suppress their desires and personality because it’s the only way that makes sense and will keep the friendship going. After 6 months, we humans begin developing bonds based on attachment rather than love or lust. The main chemicals involved are oxytocin and vasopressin. Same shit you get after an orgasm, but it cements that you need someone, that your life would be emptier without them. For the characters: The manipulator is not worming their way into someone’s heart and making a hole. They are building additional stress, which leads to good feelings, which all bond together with the sticky sap of lies to CREATE a net around both characters. They’re like a caddisfly creating a burrow instead of finding one where they actually fit.

It’s easy to fall too deep into the spell of a long relationship, even if it’s just an acquaintanceship, or friendship. Dateship is even worse, because then you get to play on heartstrings and they’re obligated to fix them because they made a deal to work things out with you and stay in love as long as possible.

Over time the victim stops being useful. They’ve been turned into a pitiful wreck, who needs the manipulator to tell them what to do every step of the way. Either that, or they make friends and a spark of rebellion means they start fighting back. Keeping logs. Forcing them to sign things. Making sure fights are in view of other people. Once additional not-victims see things, it can be easier for the real victim to find solid footing. A manipulative fuckhead character does not like solid footing. They want to be relied on. Either way, they’ve expired in their usefulness. The manipulative character has to move on.

They can do so by latching onto one of the friends peeled away from the initial victim by seeding years ago that the victim is the bad guy, or from a current group member who has been explicitly warned not to mess with the victim, or even an entirely new group fashioned behind the scenes. Because the manipulator is free to lie, steal, cheat, and have full exciting lives while the victim has to play to their demands.

They can now bring forth a story, that the victim has been holding them back and hurting them for years. Every detail, every piece of their lives is now a way to hurt the victim one last time. The trick is, they have to make sure everyone new knows that the victim is a liar, is bad, is toxic and should be avoided. This is something the victim will also want to say about the abuser... later. When they recognize everything they’ve done while they were tucked under the spell. They will question themselves, for very long periods of time, while the abuser/manipulator character will jump right on that shit. Spreading the lies early means no one will check on the victim character. They can be eliminated as the real liar if they strike first.

Clues that the manipulator character is really the asshole include: Being too quick on the draw while pointing out who is wrong. Victims need time to process and unravel, the manipulator knows the lies already. Prolonging it. Victims want to stop contact, to move on, to warn others but to avoid the situations that make them feel queasy and hurt. Manipulators will constantly check their profiles, leave messages years later to hurt the victim, and spread nasty stories long after the victim character has moved on. They will boil in the drama and prolong it... especially as baggage the next victim has to be careful of and work around of while they get drawn into the net. 

So after that heart rending rendition of how manipulative characters work internally, how do they work for an author/player? Most of the time when an author wants to make a manipulative character it’s to damage the hero or give them something to grow beyond. Think Mother Gothell from Rapunzel. That shit was hella abusive and emotionally manipulative! Drawn on her for inspiration. Research this shit, and then apply it. Do you want to damage the other character for hurt/comfort stuff later? Do you use it as in-character fictional catharsis? It will matter how you word it.

So be aware of what you’re doing. Do not fall for the spell of just behaving like a manipulator in text and going ‘it’s okay it’s fictional’. It will take a real toll on the other player if you do not highlight what your manipulative character is doing. Be a talkative narrator. Explain what they’re doing, at least a little bit, or you can actually fuck up people.

For instance. Let’s go back to the sniffling about lunch.

Agatha was staring at her book with the distant gaze of someone preoccupied, sniffing a third time that hour. Lloyd had, in her opinion, abandoned her for far too long to have lunch. It was time to catch his attention. She pushed out her lower lip, willing herself to look a bit more upset. She gently touched her own stomach, “Boy,” she said wistfully, “I’m quite hungry...”

This is way better for the other player to understand that she’s playing at being sad, without destroying how realistic it looks to the other character. This lays down the obvious in narration, without completely outing her in play. The next is a bad version of this scene:

Agatha sniffled, eyes glazed. Her lip was extended in a pout and her body language writ large how miserable she was, “Boy, I’m quite hungry.” She sniffed, quietly to herself to avoid Lloyd hearing. It was self-pity, a deep loneliness that ruined her reading... 

Good writing! Baaaad for intent. This makes her upset look genuine (which it isn’t) which may make it harder for the other player to respond. Watch how you word things. Explain them from an outsider perspective to give an inside view of how things are working. This makes the story move easier.

Plus, you don’t wanna be that prick who goes from IC to OOC without any real distinction between the two and starts a fight because it turns out an IC woe was an OOC one, and your partner responded “wrong”. That’s you being a jerk, so don’t do that. Make sure you have a clear view of what is in character and what is out of character. It’s important, to keep the scenes strong, and to keep from your partner feeling taken advantage of when it turns out to be some massive manipulation. They may actually fall for it if you ever fall into the habit of actually hiding your intent behind a thin smoke-screen of ‘but it’s IC’.

Double check with your partner often, check that they recognize what’s going on. This may be as easy as chuckling over a scene with them ooc ((Hah, isn’t Aggie being such a jerk? Lloyd would never do that to her! )) to actually sitting down and going ((Hey you okay? This is pretty intense, and she’s clearly got him wrapped around her little finger. I wanna make sure you’re okay and know I don’t believe what she’s saying. ))

Partners are the most important thing here. Readers, on the other hand, don’t have to have an active role. They’re being fed the entire story, so you can fuck with them all you want and it’ll just be a twist happening to someone else. You can play with words, hide your intent, and slowly reveal how twisted dear old Aggie is over time, instead of putting it out there each step of the way so your friend playing lloyd can catch onto which way to write the victim into. Readers are there to absorb and get amazed and shocked and feel relatable pain, loss, and sorrow. They can stop, and walk away if it’s too much. A partner playing another character feel obligation to stick around and see how things play out even if they’re hurt. They have more creativity and time put into the situation. Remember that while you’re playing, and remember they put themselves where the character is to see what comes next. Give them respect as human beings, and don’t fucking hurt them.

So yes, how do we use this in other situations though? A suave magical emperor and his subordinates? Same concepts really, you play on emotions. If the hero is trying to stop you as the villain, you put their family in danger. You make them question their choices, you hurt them. You make them out to be the villain and you a simple victim. You point out all the ways what they’ve done could make them look bad, or hurt others. You focus on trying to make them hate themselves, or feel like there’s another path.

You try to look like a friend, if they haven’t outed your character as a villain yet, and slowly bond with them. Point out that everyone around them is gross, that they should be avoided. Praise them for things you want to see, but make subtle indications other ideas are terrible. Complain about things that other people do, but that they do as well. That’s how you work around directly confronting them before they deeply trust you. Make their world view shift to favor your opinion.

The evil wizard telling you you’re under a curse that makes everything you do seem cruel to others, so you’re constantly second guessing yourself. Pointing out what you’re doing mirrors themselves. All logical fallacies pointing to emotion as reasoning, rather than anything else. It’s a focus on guilt, on making them want to change. You don’t force, you persuade, limit their choices, and break them. The less they’re willing to trust themselves and their friends, the easier they are to sway to evil. They may even start imitating you to get your love and attention. You can train someone to be cruel.

And that, my kiddies, is how you make a villain that people fucking hate. Because the hero seems lost, and they want to yell NO! Don’t listen to Mighty Thorgar The Cruel! He’s using you! Auuugh! The more you explain why they themselves have been stuck in this career choice the more likable they are, but if you go too far you may be travelling from ‘morally grey’ into Loki and Draco fan territory where their fave did nothing wrong it was all a product of how they were raised. You can do wrong things and then grow up and change. Infants scream and fake crying to make mommy do shit too, doesn’t mean most of them won’t grow out of it.

It’s how you write that will define how people perceive things. So double check your writing, always. Make sure it reads your goals, not just reads as well written. Check with your partners, scare your readers, and let your characters prey on people’s feelings. Can they hurt them? Go for it. Just do it safely and with a reasonable definition between IC and OOC. Don’t let it get out of control with another person, ever. It hurts. Good luck on your writing.

Oh, and because I know it’ll happen... I’m sorry if you were abused like this. I’m sorry if you feel targeted. This was written for writers only, and maybe spotting habits so you can get yourself out early. If you feel called out by this post or the behaviors in it, remember that I don’t know you. That if you are offended, I’m reflecting something you don’t like. So look at yourself, and consider if you want that part of you to exist. You can change if you truly want to and are willing to monitor yourself. Good luck, and this disclaimer is so you know I am not pointing fingers at you... unless you’re the asshole who did this to me so I mean, fuck that guy.